Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Several justification logics have evolved, starting with the logicLP, (Artemov 2001). These can be thought of as explicit versions of modal logics, or logics of knowledge or belief, in which the unanalyzed necessity (knowledge, belief) operator has been replaced with a family of explicit justification terms. Modal logics come in various strengths. For their corresponding justification logics, differing strength is reflected in different vocabularies. What we show here is that for justification logics corresponding to modal logics extending T, various familiar extensions are actually conservative with respect to each other. Our method of proof is very simple, and general enough to handle several justification logics not directly corresponding to distinct modal logics. Our methods do not, however, allow us to prove comparable results for justification logics corresponding to modal logics that do not extend T. That is, we are able to handle explicit logics of knowledge, but not explicit logics of belief. This remains open.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Norihiro Kamide (2002). Kripke Semantics for Modal Substructural Logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (4):453-470.
Kazimierz Świrydowicz (1990). On Regular Modal Logics with Axiom □ ⊤ → □□ ⊤. Studia Logica 49 (2):171 - 174.
Jan Plaza (2007). Logics of Public Communications. Synthese 158 (2):165 - 179.
Melvin Fitting, Lars Thalmann & Andrei Voronkov (2001). Term-Modal Logics. Studia Logica 69 (1):133-169.
Marcus Kracht & Frank Wolter (1997). Simulation and Transfer Results in Modal Logic – a Survey. Studia Logica 59 (2):149-177.
Added to index2009-06-23
Total downloads10 ( #114,518 of 740,279 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,338 of 740,279 )
How can I increase my downloads?