Inevitability in branching time

  • José Carmo
  • Amílcar Sernadas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 363)


An inevitability operator (L) is defined within the Peircean semantic approach to temporal logic. This operator can be seen as a kind of meta-linear operator that allows to incorporate within a branching Peircean logic the underlying linear logic. Its semantic definition involves the change of frame. The semantic properties of the operator L are analyzed and a sound axiomatization is provided for this operator. The relationships that this operator introduces between the resulting branching logic and the underlying linear logic are also analyzed, semantically and axiomatically. Although the completeness of the proposed axiomatization is not provided herein, some comments are made on how to extend the usual Henkin contruction in order to obtain that result. Dynamic model structures are also used in order to define what we call herein "branching logics with a pure linear past", and sound axiomatizations are also provided for these logics.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Boolos79]
    Boolos, G., The Unprovability of Consistency. An Essay in Modal Logic, Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. [Burgess78]
    Burgess, J.P., "The Unreal Future", Theoria, XLIV, 157–174, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. [Carmo85]
    Carmo, J., "The Infolog Branching Logic of Events", in: Sernadas, A., Bubenko, J. and Olivé, A. (eds.), Theoretical and Formal Aspects of Information Systems 1985, North-Holland, 159–174, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [Carmo88a]
    Carmo, J., "Lógicas Temporais para a Especificação e Verificação de Sistemas de Informação", Ph. D. thesis, IST (the Lisbon Institute of Technology, Technical University of Lisbon), 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [Carmo88b]
    Carmo, J. and Sernadas, A., "Branching versus Linear Logics Yet Again", internal report, IST/INESC, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [Emerson86]
    Emerson, E.A. and Halpern, J.Y., ""Sometimes" and "Not Never" Revisited: On Branching versus Linear Time Temporal Logic", Journal ACM 33 (1), 151–178, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [Gabbay72]
    Gabbay, D.M., "Tense Systems with Discrete Moments of Time: Part I", Journal of Philosophical Logic 1, 35–44, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. [Hamilton78]
    Hamilton, A.G., Logic for Mathematicians, Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [Hughes84]
    Hughes, G.E. e Cresswell, M.J., A Companion to Modal Logic, Methuen, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [McArthur76]
    McArthur, R.P., Tense Logic, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. [McCall79]
    McCall, S., "The Strong Future Tense", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic XX (3), 489–504, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [Prior67]
    Prior, A., Past, Present and Future, Oxford, 1967.Google Scholar
  13. [Rescher71]
    Rescher, N. e Urquhart, A., Temporal Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. [Thomason70]
    Thomason, R.H., "Indeterministic Time and Truth-Value Gaps", Theoria 36, 264–281, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Carmo
    • 1
  • Amílcar Sernadas
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Computer ScienceDepartment of Mathematics, ISTLisboa CodexPortugal

Personalised recommendations