Online research in philosophy

We use here the notions and results from algebraic theory of programs in order to give a new proof of the decidability theorem for Suszko logic SCI (Theorem 3).We generalize the method used in the proof of that theorem in order to prove a more general fact that any prepositional logic which admits a cut-free Gentzen type formalization is decidable (Theorem 6).

This paper is the first of a series of three articles that present the syntactic proof of the PA-completeness of the modal system G, by introducing suitable proof-theoretic objects, which also have an independent interest. We start from the syntactic PA-completeness of modal system GL-LIN, previously obtained in [7], [8], and so we assume to be working on modal sequents S which are GL-LIN-theorems. If S is not a G-theorem we define here a notion of syntactic metric d(S, G): we calculate a canonical characteristic fomula H of S (char(S)) so that G H (S) and GL-LIN H, and the complexity of H gives the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then, in order to produce the whole completeness proof as an induction on this d(S, G), we introduce the tree-interpretation of a modal sequent Q into PA, that sends the letters of Q into PA-formulas describing the properties of a GL-LIN-proof P of Q: It is also a d(*, G)-metric linked interpretation, since it will be applied to a proof-tree T of H with H = char(S) and ( H) = d(S, G).

Propositional dynamic logic () is complete but not compact. As a consequence, strong completeness (the property ) requires an infinitary proof system. In this paper, we present a short proof for strong completeness of relative to an infinitary proof system containing the rule from [α; β n ]φ for all , conclude . The proof uses a universal canonical model, and it is generalized to other modal logics with infinitary proof rules, such as epistemic knowledge with common knowledge. Also, we show that the universal canonical model of lacks the property of modal harmony, the analogue of the Truth lemma for modal operators.

A minimal theorem in a logic L is an L-theorem which is not a non-trivial substitution instance of another L-theorem. Komori (1987) raised the question whether every minimal implicational theorem in intuitionistic logic has a unique normal proof in the natural deduction system NJ. The answer has been known to be partially positive and generally negative. It is shown here that a minimal implicational theorem A in intuitionistic logic has a unique -normal proof in NJ whenever A is provable without non-prime contraction. The non-prime contraction rule in NJ is the implication introduction rule whose cancelled assumption differs from a propositional variable and appears more than once in the proof. Our result improves the known partial positive solutions to Komori's problem. Also, we present another simple example of a minimal implicational theorem in intuitionistic logic which does not have a unique -normal proof in NJ.

It is shown that for arithmetical interpretations that may include free variables it is not the Guaspari-Solovay system R that is arithmetically complete, but their system R –. This result is then applied to obtain the nonvalidity of some rules under arithmetical interpretations including free variables, and to show that some principles concerning Rosser orderings with free variables cannot be decided, even if one restricts oneself to usual proof predicates.

This paper is the final part of the syntactic demonstration of the Arithmetical Completeness of the modal system G; in the preceding parts [9] and [10] the tools for the proof were defined, in particular the notion of syntactic countermodel. Our strategy is: PA-completeness of G as a search for interpretations which force the distance between G and a GL-LIN-theorem to zero. If the GL-LIN-theorem S is not a G-theorem, we construct a formula H expressing the non G-provability of S, so that ⊢GL-LIN ∼ H and so that a canonical proof T of ∼ H in GL-LIN is a syntactic countermodel for S with respect to G, which has the height θ(T) equal to the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then we define the interpretation ξ of S which represents the proof-tree T in PA. By induction on θ(T), we prove that ⊢PA Sξ and d(S, G) > 0 imply the inconsistency of PA.

The modal completeness proofs of Guaspari and Solovay (1979) for their systems R and R – are improved and the relationship between R and R – is clarified.

The paper proves a predicate version of Solovay's well-known theorem on provability interpretations of modal logic: If a closed modal predicate-logical formula R is not valid in some finite Kripke model, then there exists an arithmetical interpretation f such that $PA \nvdash fR$ . This result implies the arithmetical completeness of arithmetically correct modal predicate logics with the finite model property (including the one-variable fragments of QGL and QS). The proof was obtained by adding "the predicate part" as a specific addition to the standard Solovay construction.

In this paper the PA-completeness of modal logic is studied by syntactical and constructive methods. The main results are theorems on the structure of the PA-proofs of suitable arithmetical interpretationsS of a modal sequentS, which allow the transformation of PA-proofs ofS into proof-trees similar to modal proof-trees. As an application of such theorems, a proof of Solovay's theorem on arithmetical completeness of the modal system G is presented for the class of modal sequents of Boolean combinations of formulas of the form p i,m i=0, 1, 2, ... The paper is the preliminary step for a forthcoming global syntactical resolution of the PA-completeness problem for modal logic.

To the standard propositional modal system of provability logic constants are added to account for the arithmetical fixed points introduced by Bernardi-Montagna in [5]. With that interpretation in mind, a system LR of modal propositional logic is axiomatized, a modal completeness theorem is established for LR and, after that, a uniform arithmetical (Solovay-type) completeness theorem with respect to PA is obtained for LR.