Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:37:20.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On simple, weak and strong models of propositional calculi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Ronald Harrop
Ronald Harrop
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby 2, B.C., Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we will be concerned primarily with weak, strong and simple models of a propositional calculus, simple models being structures of a certain type in which all provable formulae of the calculus are valid. It is shown that the finite model property defined in terms of simple models holds for all calculi. This leads to a new proof of the fact that there is no general effective method for testing, given a finite structure and a calculus, whether or not the structure is a simple model of the calculus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , July 1973 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 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

REFERENCES

(1)Harrop, R.On the existence of finite models and decision procedures for propositional calculi. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 54 (1958), 1–13.Google Scholar
(2)Harrop, R.A relativization procedure for propositional calculi with an application to a generalized form of Post's theorem. Proc. London Math. Soc. 14 (1964), 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Harrop, R.Some structure results for propositional calculi. J. Symbolic Logic 30 (1965), 271–292.Google Scholar
(4)Harrop, R. Some forms of models of propositional calculi. Contributions to mathematical logic: Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium, Hanover 1966, edited by Schmidt, W. A., Schütte, K. and Thiele, H. J., pp. 163–174. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1968.)Google Scholar
(5)Harrop, R.On the equivalence for non-derivability testing of finite Smiley models and finite modified Smiley models. Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math. 17 (1971), 137–143.Google Scholar
(6)Harrop, R. Über endliche Modelle von Aussagenkalkülen, Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, Tagungsbericht 11/1970 Mathematisches Logik, p. 15.Google Scholar
(7)Hiz, H.Extendible sentential calculus. J. Symbolic Logic 24 (1959), 193–202.Google Scholar
(8)Kleene, S. C.Introduction to metamathematics (North Holland, Amsterdam; Noordoff, Groningen; Van Nostrand, New York, Toronto, 1952).Google Scholar
(9)Pahi, B. and Applebee, R. C. An unsolvable problem concerning implicational calculi (unpublished).Google Scholar