Skip to main content
Log in

Undivided and Indistinguishable Histories in Branching-Time Logics

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the tree-like representation of Time, two histories are “undivided” at a moment t whenever they share a common moment in the future of t. In the present paper, it will first be proved that Ockhamist and Peircean branching-time logics are unable to express some important sentences in which the notion of undividedness is involved. Then, a new semantics for branching-time logic will be presented. The new semantics is based on trees endowed with an “indistinguishability” function, a generalization of the notion of undividedness. It will be shown that Ockhamist and Peircean semantics can be viewed as limit cases of the semantics developed in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belnap, N., 1991, “Before refraining: Concepts for agency,” Erkenntnis 34, 137–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N., 1992, “Branching space-time,” Synthese 92, 385–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N., 1996, “Agents in branching time,” pp. 239–271 in Logic and Reality: Essays in Pure and Applied Logic, in Memory of Arthur Prior, B.J. Copeland, ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. and Perloff, M., 1990, “Seeing to it that: A canonical form of agentives,” pp. 175–199 in Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasonings, H.E. Kyburg, R.P. Loui, and G.N. Carlson, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., 1978, “The unreal future,” Theoria 44, 157–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., 1979, “Logic and time,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 44, 556–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., 1980, “Decidability for branching time,” Studia Logica 39, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D., Hodkinson, I., and Reynolds, M., 1994, Temporal Logic: Mathematical Foundation and Computational Aspects, Vol. I, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. and Belnap, N., 1995, “The deliberative stit: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24(6), 583–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Kutschera, F., 1993, “Causation,” J. of Philosophical Logic 22, 563–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Øhrstrøm, P. and Hasle, P.F.V., 1995, Temporal Logic: From Ancient Ideas to Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Linguistic and Philosophy, Vol. 57, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A., 1967, Past, Present and Future, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R., 1984, “Combination of tense and modality,” pp. 135–165 in The Handbook of Philosophical Logic, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanardo, A., 1996, “Branching-time logic with quantification over branches: The point of view of modal logic,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 61(1), 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zanardo, A. Undivided and Indistinguishable Histories in Branching-Time Logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 297–315 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008259000544

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008259000544

Navigation