Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:42:08.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Model existence theorems for modal and intuitionistic logics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Melvin Fitting*
Affiliation:
Herbert H. Lehman College (Cuny), Bronx, New York 10468

Extract

In classical logic a collection of sets of statements (or equivalently, a property of sets of statements) is called a consistency property if it meets certain simple closure conditions (a definition is given in §2). The simplest example of a consistency property is the collection of all consistent sets in some formal system for classical logic. The Model Existence Theorem then says that any member of a consistency property is satisfiable in a countable domain. From this theorem many basic results of classical logic follow rather simply: completeness theorems, the compactness theorem, the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, and the Craig interpolation lemma among others. The central position of the theorem in classical logic is obvious. For the infinitary logic the Model Existence Theorem is even more basic as the compactness theorem is not available; [8] is largely based on it.

In this paper we define appropriate notions of consistency properties for the first-order modal logics S4, T and K (without the Barcan formula) and for intuitionistic logic. Indeed we define two versions for intuitionistic logic, one deriving from the work of Gentzen, one from Beth; both have their uses. Model Existence Theorems are proved, from which the usual known basic results follow. We remark that Craig interpolation lemmas have been proved model theoretically for these logics by Gabbay ([5], [6]) using ultraproducts. The existence of both ultra-product and consistency property proofs of the same result is a common phenomena in classical and infinitary logic. We also present extremely simple tableau proof systems for S4, T, K and intuitionistic logics, systems whose completeness is an easy consequence of the Model Existence Theorems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1973

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Beth, E. W., The foundations of mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1959; Harper and Row, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[2] Feys, R., Modal logics (Dopp, J., Editor), Collection de Logique Mathematique, E. Nauwelaerts, Louvain, 1965.Google Scholar
[3] Fitting, M. C., Intuitionistic logic model theory and forcing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
[4] Fitting, M. C. Tableau methods of proof for modal logics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 13 (1972), pp. 237247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Gabbay, D. M., Craig's interpolation theorem for modal predicate calculi. I, Scientific report no. 6, Applied Logic Branch, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Mathematics Institute, Oxford University, 1969.Google Scholar
[6] Gabbay, D. M., Semantic proof of Craig's interpolation theorem for intuitionistic logic and extension. I, Scientific report no. 5, Applied Logic Branch, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Mathematics Institute, Oxford University, 1969.Google Scholar
[7] Gentzen, G., Investigations into logical deduction, The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen (Szabo, M. E., Editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 68131.Google Scholar
[8] Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[9] Kripke, S., Semantical considerations on modal logics, Acta Philosophica Fennica (1963), pp. 8394.Google Scholar
[10] Smullyan, R., First-order logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar