Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:49:00.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Back and forth constructions in modal logic: An interpolation theorem for a family of modal logics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

George Weaver  and
Jeffrey Welaish
George Weaver
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010
Jeffrey Welaish
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rider College, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following is a contribution to the abstract study of the model theory of modal logics. Historically, individual modal logics have been specified deductively; and, as a result, it has seemed natural to view modal logics as sets of sentences provable in some deductive system. This proof theoretic view has influenced the abstract study of modal logics. For example, Fine [1975] defines a modal logic to be any set of sentences in the modal language L□ which contains all tautologies, all instances of the schema (□(ϕ ⊃ Ψ) ⊃ (□ϕ ⊃ □Ψ)), and which is closed under modus ponens, necessitation and substitution.

Here, however, modal logics are equated with classes of “possible world” interpretations. “Worlds” are taken to be ordered pairs (a, λ), where a is a sentential interpretation and λ is an ordinal. Properties of the accessibility relation are identified with those classes of binary relational systems closed under isomorphisms. The origin of this approach is the study of alternative Kripke semantics for the normal modal logics (cf. Weaver [1973]). It is motivated by the desire that modal logics provide accounts of both logical truth and logical consequence (cf. Corcoran and Weaver [1969]) and the realization that there are alternative Kripke semantics for S4, B and M which give identical accounts of logical truth, but different accounts of logical consequence (cf. Weaver [1973]). It is shown that the Craig interpolation theorem holds for any modal logic which has characteristic modal axioms and whose associated class of binary relational systems is closed under subsystems and finite direct products. The argument uses a back and forth construction to establish a modal analogue of Robinson's theorem. The argument for the interpolation theorem from Robinson's theorem employs modal analogues of the Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé characterization of elementary equivalence and Hintikka's distributive normal form, and is itself a modal analogue of a first order argument (cf. Weaver [1982]).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 969 - 980
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J. [1973], Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Corcoran, J. and Weaver, G. [1969], Logical consequence in modal logic. I: Natural deduction in S5, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 10, pp. 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenfeucht, A. [1956], An application of games to the completeness problem for formalized theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 49, pp. 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. [1974]; Logics containing K4. Part I, this Journal, vol. 39, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
Fine, K. [1975], Some connections between elementary and modal logic, Proceedings of the third Scandinavian logic symposium (Kanger, S., editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraïssé, R. [1955], Sur quelques classifications des relations, basées sur des isomorphismes restreints. I, II, Publications Scientifiques de l'Université d'Algers, ser. A, vol. 2, pp. 11–60, 273–295.Google Scholar
Gabbay, D. [1972], Craig's interpolation theorem for modal logic, Conference in mathematical logic—London 1970(Hodges, W., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 255, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, pp. 111–127.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. [1965], Distributive normal forms in first order logic, Format systems and recursive functions (Crossley, J. N. and Dummett, M. A. E., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 47–90.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. [1959], A completeness theorem in modal logic, this Journal, vol. 24, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. [1963], Semantical analysis of modal logic. I, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 9, pp. 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maksimova, L. L. [1979], Interpolation theorems in modal logic and amalgamable varieties of topological algebras, Algebra and Logic, vol. 18, pp. 348–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maksimova, L. L. [1980], Interpolation theorems in modal logic: sufficient conditions, Algebra and Logic, vol. 19, pp. 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Méshi, V. Ú. [1974], Kripke semantics for modal systems that include S4.3, Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vol. 15, pp. 523–528.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. K. [1975], Categories of frames for modal logic, this Journal, vol. 40, pp. 439–442.Google Scholar
Weaver, G. [1973], Logical consequence in modal logic: Alternative semantic systems for normal modal logics, Truth, syntax and modality (Leblanc, H., editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. [1982], A note on the interpolation theorem in first order logic, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 28, pp. 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. and Corcoran, J. [1974], Logical consequence in modal logic. II: Some semantic systems for S4, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 15, pp. 370–378.Google Scholar
Zeman, J. J. [1972], Semantics for S4.3.2, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 13, pp. 454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar