Studia Logica

, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 49–84 | Cite as

Proof Theory for Functional Modal Logic

  • Shawn StandeferEmail author


We present some proof-theoretic results for the normal modal logic whose characteristic axiom is \(\mathord {\sim }\mathord {\Box }A\equiv \mathord {\Box }\mathord {\sim }A\). We present a sequent system for this logic and a hypersequent system for its first-order form and show that these are equivalent to Hilbert-style axiomatizations. We show that the question of validity for these logics reduces to that of classical tautologyhood and first-order logical truth, respectively. We close by proving equivalences with a Fitch-style proof system for revision theory.


Functional modal logic Hypersequents Revision theory Proof theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, A.R., and N.D. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonelli, G.A., A revision-theoretic analysis of the arithmetical hierarchy. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35(2):204–218, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avron, A., A constructive analysis of RM. Journal of Symbolic Logic 52(4):939–951, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baillot, P., and D. Mazza, Linear logic by levels and bounded time complexity. Theoretical Computer Science 411(2):470–503, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belnap, N.D., Tonk, plonk and plink. Analysis 22(6):130–134, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bimbó, K., Proof theory: Sequent calculi and related formalisms. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boudes, P., D. Mazza, and L.T. de Falco, An abstract approach to stratification in linear logic. Information and Computation 241:32–61, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruni, R., Analytic calculi for circular concepts by finite revision. Studia Logica 101(5):915–932, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chellas, B.F., Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curry, H.B., Foundations of Mathematical Logic. Dover Publications, Mineola, 1963.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davies, M., and L. Humberstone, Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies 38(1):1–31, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunn, J.M., Positive modal logic. Studia Logica 55(2):301–317, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunn, M., and G. Restall, Relevance logic, in D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fitting, M., Nested sequents for intuitionistic logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 55(1):41–61, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitting, M.C., V.W. Marek, and M. Truszczyński, The pure logic of necessitation. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3):349–373, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    French, R., and D. Ripley, Contractions of noncontractive consequence relations. Review of Symbolic Logic 8(3):506–528, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabbay D.M., A. Kurucz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev, Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, London, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garson, J.W., Modal Logic for Philosophers. 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gentzen, G., Investigations into logical deduction. American Philosophical Quarterly 1(4):288–306, 1964.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gupta, A., Remarks on definitions and the concept of truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 89:227–246, 1988–89. Reprinted in Truth, Meaning, Experience. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta, A., and N. Belnap, The Revision Theory of Truth. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gupta, A., and S. Standefer, Conditionals in theories of truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, pp. 1–37. Forthcoming, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hughes, G.E., and M.J. Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, Abingdon, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Humberstone, L., Smiley’s distinction between rules of inference and rules of proof, in T.J. Smiley, J. Lear and A. Oliver (eds.), The Force of Argument: Essays in Honor of Timothy Smiley, Routledge, Abingdon, 2010, pp. 107–126.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Indrzejczak, A., Linear time in hypersequent framework. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 22(1):121–144, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawai, H., Sequential calculus for a first order infinitary temporal logic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 33(5):423–432, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lahav, O., and Y. Zohar, SAT-Based Decision Procedure for Analytic Pure Sequent Calculi, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014, pp. 76–90.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lellmann, B., Linear nested sequents, 2-sequents and hypersequents, in H. De Nivelle, (ed.), Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods: 24th International Conference, TABLEAUX 2015, Wroclaw, Poland, September 21-24, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015, pp. 135–150.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masini, A., 2-sequent calculus: A proof theory of modalities. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 58(3):229–246, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Merz, S., Decidability and incompleteness results for first-order temporal logics of linear time. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 2(2):139–156, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Minc, G., On Some Calculi of Modal Logic, in V. Orevkov, (ed.), The Calculi of Symbolic Logic. I., vol. 98, pp. 97–124. American Mathematical Society. Originally published in Russian in 1968 in Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, edited by I.G. Petrovskii and S.M. Nikol’skii, 1971.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Negri, S., and J. von Plato, Structural Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parsons, J., Command and consequence. Philosophical Studies 164(1):61–92, 2013.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poggiolesi, F., Gentzen Calculi for Modal Propositional Logic. Springer, Berlin, 2010.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pottinger, G., Uniform cut-free formulations of T, S4 and S5 (abstract). Journal of Symbolic Logic 48(3):900–901, 1983.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rescher, N., and A. Urquhart, Temporal Logic. Springer, Berlin, 1971.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Restall, G., Negation in relevant logics (how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Routley star), in D.M. Gabbay, and H. Wansing, (eds.), What is Negation?, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Restall, G., An Introduction to Substructural Logics. Routledge, Abingdon, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Restall, G., A cut-free sequent system for two-dimensional modal logic, and why it matters. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(11):1611–1623, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Segerberg, K., Modal logics with functional alternative relations. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27(4):504–522, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Standefer, S., Solovay-type theorems for circular definitions. Review of Symbolic Logic 8(3):467–487, 2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Troelstra, A.S., and H. Schwichtenberg, Basic Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wansing, H., Displaying Modal Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Historical and Philosophical StudiesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations