Which Modal Logic Is the Right One?

Abstract
The question, "Which modal logic is the right one for logical necessity?," divides into two questions, one about model-theoretic validity, the other about proof-theoretic demonstrability. The arguments of Halldén and others that the right validity argument is S5, and the right demonstrability logic includes S4, are reviewed, and certain common objections are argued to be fallacious. A new argument, based on work of Supecki and Bryll, is presented for the claim that the right demonstrability logic must be contained in S5, and a more speculative argument for the claim that it does not include S4.2 is also presented
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 12,088
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
Roy T. Cook (2011). The No-No Paradox Is a Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):467-482.
Similar books and articles
Tracy Lupher (2012). A Logical Choice. Southwest Philosophy Review 28 (1):237-246.
Minghui Ma (2010). Toward Model-Theoretic Modal Logics. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5 (2):294-311.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-24

Total downloads

32 ( #58,443 of 1,102,030 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #68,255 of 1,102,030 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.