We present a rooted hypersequent calculus for modal propositional logic S5. We show that all rules of this calculus are invertible and that the rules of weakening, contraction, and cut are admissible. Soundness and completeness are established as well.

This paper presents a recent formalization of a Henkin-style completeness proof for the propositional modal logic S5 using the Lean theorem prover. The proof formalized is close to that of Hughes and Cresswell, but the system, based on a different choice of axioms, is better described as a Mendelson system augmented with axiom schemes for K, T, S4, and B, and the necessitation rule as a rule of inference. The language has the false and implication as the only (...) primitive logical connectives and necessity as the only primitive modal operator. The full source code is available online and has been typechecked with Lean 3.4.2. (shrink)

Unifiability of terms (and formulas) and structural completeness in the variety of relation algebras RA and in the products of modal logic S5 is investigated. Nonunifiable terms (formulas) which are satisfiable in varieties (in logics) are exhibited. Consequently, RA and products of S5 as well as representable diagonal-free n-dimensional cylindric algebras, RDfn, are almost structurally complete but not structurally complete. In case of S5n a basis for admissible rules and the form of all passive rules are provided.

In this paper, we present a simple sequent calculus for the modal propositional logic S5. We prove that this sequent calculus is theoremwise equivalent to the Hilbert-style system S5, that it is contraction-free and cut-free, and finally that it is decidable. All results are proved in a purely syntactic way.

We present a cut-admissible system for the modal logic S5 in a formalism that makes explicit and intensive use of deep inference. Deep inference is induced by the methods applied so far in conceptually pure systems for this logic. The system enjoys systematicity and modularity, two important properties that should be satisfied by modal systems. Furthermore, it enjoys a simple and direct design: the rules are few and the modal rules are in exact correspondence to (...) the modal axioms. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to introduce a new Gentzen formulation of the modal logic S5. The history of this problem goes back to the fifties where a counter-example to cut-elimination was given for an otherwise natural and straightforward formulation of S5. Since then, several cut-free Gentzen style formulations of S5 have been given. However, all these systems are technically involved, and furthermore, they differ considerably from Gentzen's original formulation of classical logic. In this paper we (...) give a new sequent system for S5 which is a straightforward and technically simple extension of Gentzen's original sequent system for classical logic. A characteristic feature is the notion of a connection in a proof. The new system satisfies cut-elimination as well as the subformula property. Cut-elimination is proved by giving an algorithm for eliminating cuts. The fact that we give an algorithm for eliminating cuts makes it clear that our system is susceptible to a formulae-as-types computational interpretation. (shrink)

We prove that everyn-modal logic betweenKnandS5nis undecidable, whenever n ≥ 3. We also show that each of these logics is non-finitely axiomatizable, lacks the product finite model property, and there is no algorithm deciding whether a finite frame validates the logic. These results answer several questions of Gabbay and Shehtman. The proofs combine the modal logic technique of Yankov–Fine frame formulas with algebraic logic results of Halmos, Johnson and Monk, and give a reduction of (...) the representation problem of finite relation algebras. (shrink)

We prove that every n-modal logic between K n and S5 n is undecidable, whenever n ≥ 3. We also show that each of these logics is non- finitely axiomatizable, lacks the product finite model property, and there is no algorithm deciding whether a finite frame validates the logic. These results answer several questions of Gabbay and Shehtman. The proofs combine the modal logic technique of Yankov-Fine frame formulas with algebraic logic results of Halmos, (...) Johnson and Monk, and give a reduction of the (undecidable) representation problem of finite relation algebras. (shrink)

We prove that everyn-modal logic betweenKnandS5nis undecidable, whenever n ≥ 3. We also show that each of these logics is non-finitely axiomatizable, lacks the product finite model property, and there is no algorithm deciding whether a finite frame validates the logic. These results answer several questions of Gabbay and Shehtman. The proofs combine the modal logic technique of Yankov–Fine frame formulas with algebraic logic results of Halmos, Johnson and Monk, and give a reduction of (...) the (undecidable) representation problem of finite relation algebras. (shrink)

A consequence relation is strongly classical if it has all the theorems and entailments of classical logic as well as the usual meta-rules (such as Conditional Proof). A consequence relation is weakly classical if it has all the theorems and entailments of classical logic but lacks the usual meta-rules. The most familiar example of a weakly classical consequence relation comes from a simple supervaluational approach to modelling vague language. This approach is formally equivalent to an account of logical (...) consequence according to which α1, ..., αn entails β just in case □α1, ..., □αn entails □β in the modal logic S5. This raises a natural question: If we start with a different underlying modal logic, can we generate a strongly classical logic? This paper explores this question. In particular, it discusses four related technical issues: (1) Which base modal logics generate strongly classical logics and which generate weakly classical logics? (2) Which base logics generate themselves? (3) How can we directly characterize the logic generated from a given base logic? (4) Given a logic that can be generated, which base logics generate it? The answers to these questions have philosophical interest. They can help us to determine whether there is a plausible supervaluational approach to modelling vague language that yields the usual meta-rules. They can also help us to determine the feasibility of other philosophical projects that rely on an analogous formalism, such as the project of defining logical consequence in terms of the preservation of an epistemic status. (shrink)

In this paper I introduce a sequent system for the propositional modal logic S5. Derivations of valid sequents in the system are shown to correspond to proofs in a novel natural deduction system of circuit proofs (reminiscient of proofnets in linear logic, or multiple-conclusion calculi for classical logic). -/- The sequent derivations and proofnets are both simple extensions of sequents and proofnets for classical propositional logic, in which the new machinery—to take account of the (...) class='Hi'>modal vocabulary—is directly motivated in terms of the simple, universal Kripke semantics for S5. The sequent system is cut-free and the circuit proofs are normalising. (shrink)

Falsification-aware (hyper)sequent calculi and Kripke semantics for normal modal logics including S4 and S5 are introduced and investigated in this study. These calculi and semantics are constructed based on the idea of a falsification-aware framework for Nelson’s constructive three-valued logic. The cut-elimination and completeness theorems for the proposed calculi and semantics are proved.

This is the first, out of two papers, in which we identify all logics between C1 and S5 having the same theses without iterated modalities. All these logics canbe divided into certain groups. Each such group depends only on which of thefollowing formulas are theses of all logics from this group:,,, ⌜∨ ☐q⌝,and for any n > 0 a formula ⌜ ∨ ⌝, where has not the atom ‘q’, and and have no common atom. We generalize Pollack’s result from [12],where (...) he proved that all modal logics between S1 and S5 have the same theseswhich does not involve iterated modalities. (shrink)

This is the second, out of two papers, in which we identify all logics between C1 and S5 having the same theses without iterated modalities. All these logics can be divided into certain groups. Each such group depends only on which of the following formulas are theses of all logics from this group:,,, ⌜∨☐q⌝, and for any n > 0 a formula ⌜ ∨ ⌝, where has not the atom ‘q’, and and have no common atom. We generalize Pollack’s result (...) from [1], where he proved that all modal logics between S1 and S5 have the same theses which does not involve iterated modalities. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

We analyze the precise modal commitments of several natural varieties of set-theoretic potentialism, using tools we develop for a general model-theoretic account of potentialism, building on those of Hamkins, Leibman and Löwe [14], including the use of buttons, switches, dials and ratchets. Among the potentialist conceptions we consider are: rank potentialism, Grothendieck–Zermelo potentialism, transitive-set potentialism, forcing potentialism, countable-transitive-model potentialism, countable-model potentialism, and others. In each case, we identify lower bounds for the modal validities, which are generally either S4.2 (...) or S4.3, and an upper bound of S5, proving in each case that these bounds are optimal. The validity of S5 in a world is a potentialist maximality principle, an interesting set-theoretic principle of its own. The results can be viewed as providing an analysis of the modal commitments of the various set-theoretic multiverse conceptions corresponding to each potentialist account. (shrink)

We present the propositional logic LEC for the two epistemic modalities of current and stable knowledge used by an agent who system-atically enriches his language. A change in the linguistic resources of an agent as a result of certain cognitive processes is something that commonly happens. Our system is based on the logic LC intended to formalize the idea that the occurrence of changes induces the passage of time. Here, the primitive operator C read as: it changes that, (...) defines the temporal succession of states of the world. The notion of current knowledge concerns variable components of the world and it may change over time. We represent it by the primitive operator k read as: the agent currently knows that, and assume that it has S5 properties. The second type of knowledge, symbolized by the primitive operator K read as: the agent stably knows that, relates to constant components of the world and it does not change. As a result of the axiomatic entanglement of C, K and k we show that stable knowledge satisfies axioms of S4.3. K and k modalities are not mutually definable, stable knowledge implies the current one and if the latter never changes, then it comes to be stable. The combination of K and k with the idea of an expanding language allows questioning of the so-called perfect recall principle. It cannot be maintained for both types of knowledge just because of changes in the vocabulary of the agent and possibly the growing spectrum of possible states of the world. We interpret LEC in the semantics of histories of epistemic changes and show that it is complete. Finally, we compare our logic with selected epistemic logics based on the concept of linear discrete time. (shrink)

In most modal logics, atomic propositional symbols are directly representing the meaning of sentences (such as sets of possible worlds). In other words, they use only rigid propositional designators. This means they are not able to handle uncertainty in meaning directly at the sentential level. In this paper, we offer a modal language involving non-rigid propositional designators which can also carefully distinguish de re and de dicto use of these designators. Then, we axiomatize the logics in this language (...) with respect to all Kripke models with multiple modalities and with respect to S5 Kripke models with a single modality. (shrink)

One can add the machinery of relation symbols and terms to a propositional modal logic without adding quantifiers. Ordinarily this is no extension beyond the propositional. But if terms are allowed to be non-rigid, a scoping mechanism (usually written using lambda abstraction) must also be introduced to avoid ambiguity. Since quantifiers are not present, this is not really a first-order logic, but it is not exactly propositional either. For propositional logics such as K, T and D, adding (...) such machinery produces a decidable logic, but adding it to S5 produces an undecidable one. Further, if an equality symbol is in the language, and interpreted by the equality relation, logics from K4 to S5 yield undecidable versions. (Thus transitivity is the villain here.) The proof of undecidability consists in showing that classical first-order logic can be embedded. (shrink)

We show that the actuality operator A is redundant in any propositional modal logic characterized by a class of Kripke models (respectively, neighborhood models). Specifically, we prove that for every formula ${\phi}$ in the propositional modal language with A, there is a formula ${\psi}$ not containing A such that ${\phi}$ and ${\psi}$ are materially equivalent at the actual world in every Kripke model (respectively, neighborhood model). Inspection of the proofs leads to corresponding proof-theoretic results concerning the eliminability (...) of the actuality operator in the actuality extension of any normal propositional modal logic and of any “classical” modal logic. As an application, we provide an alternative proof of a result of Williamson’s to the effect that the compound operator A□ behaves, in any normal logic between T and S5, like the simple necessity operator □ in S5. (shrink)

This paper is a continuation of the authors' attempts to deal with the notion of indistinguishability (or indiscernibility) from a logical point of view. Now we introduce a two-sorted first-order modal logic to enable us to deal with objects of two different species. The intended interpretation is that objects of one of the species obey the rules of standard S5, while the objects of the other species obey only the rules of a weaker notion of indiscernibility. Quantum mechanics (...) motivates the development. The basic idea is that in the ‘actual’ world things may be indiscernible but in another accessible world they may be distinguished in some way. That is, indistinguishability needs not be seen as a necessary relation. Contrariwise, things might be distinguished in the ‘actual’ world, but they may be indiscernible in another world. So, while two quantum systems may be entangled in the actual world, in some accessible world, due to a measurement, they can be discerned, and on the other hand, two initially separated quantum systems may enter in a state of superposition, losing their individualities. Two semantics are sketched for our system. The first is constructed within a standard set theory (the ZFC system is assumed at the metamathematics). The second one is constructed within the theory of quasi-sets, which we believe suits better the purposes of our logic and the mathematical treatment of certain situations in quantum mechanics. Some further philosophically related topics are considered. (shrink)

Every truth-functional three-valued propositional logic can be conservatively translated into the modal logic S5. We prove this claim constructively in two steps. First, we define a Translation Manual that converts any propositional formula of any three-valued logic into a modal formula. Second, we show that for every S5-model there is an equivalent three-valued valuation and vice versa. In general, our Translation Manual gives rise to translations that are exponentially longer than their originals. This fact raises (...) the question whether there are three-valued logics for which there is a shorter translation into S5. The answer is affirmative: we present an elegant linear translation of the Logic of Paradox and of Strong Three-valued Logic into S5. (shrink)

Prof. Ruth Barcan Marcus created quantified modal logic in 1946. She extended the Lewis calculus S2 to cover quantification. Quantified modal logic became an essential tool for the rigorous study of natural language in the hands of R. Montague in the late sixties. Some complex phenomena cannot be properly handled at the level of sentences. Recent researches in formal semantics have concentrated on discourse and led to a rich amount of results. Logical theories introduced for the (...) logical study of programs play an important role in these developments. We shall present a detailed account of the connection between dynamic logic and “static” logic. The core of the paper will be the translation of dynamic logic into S5. Developping an insight due to Prof. J. van Eijck, We shall offer a simplified version of the latter translation. The paper also relates to P. Gärdenfors' Knowledge in Flux. (shrink)

A Short Introduction to Modal Logic presents both semantic and syntactic features of the subject and illustrates them by detailed analyses of the three best-known modal systems S5, S4 and T. The book concentrates on the logical aspects of ...

Propositional modal logic over relational frames is naturally extended with propositional quantifiers by letting them range over arbitrary sets of worlds of the relevant frame. This is also known as second-order propositional modal logic. The propositionally quantified modal logic of a class of relational frames is often not axiomatizable, although there are known exceptions, most notably the case of frames validating the strong modal logic$\mathrm {S5}$. Here, we develop new general methods with (...) which many of the open questions in this area can be answered. We illustrate the usefulness of these methods by applying them to a range of examples, which provide a detailed picture of which normal modal logics define classes of relational frames whose propositionally quantified modal logic is axiomatizable. We also apply these methods to establish new results in the multimodal case. (shrink)

Jaśkowski’s discussive logic D2 was formulated with the help of the modal logic S5 as follows (see [7, 8]): \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A \in {D_{2}}}$$\end{document} iff \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\rm S}5}$$\end{document}, where (–)• is a translation of discussive formulae from Ford into the modal language. We say that a modal logic L defines D2 iff \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} (...) \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\rm D}_{2} = \{A \in {\rm For^{\rm d}} : \ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\it L}\}}$$\end{document}. In [14] and [10] were respectively presented the weakest normal and the weakest regular logic which (†): have the same theses beginning with ‘\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\diamond}$$\end{document}’ as S5. Of course, all logics fulfilling the above condition, define D2. In [10] it was prowed that in the cases of logics closed under congruence the following holds: defining D2 is equivalent to having the property (†). In this paper we show that this equivalence holds also for all modal logics which are closed under replacement of tautological equivalents (rte-logics).We give a general method which, for any class of modal logics determined by a set of joint axioms and rules, generates in the given class the weakest logic having the property (†). Thus, for the class of all modal logics we obtain the weakest modal logic which owns this property. On the other hand, applying the method to various classes of modal logics: rte-logics, congruential, monotonic, regular and normal, we obtain the weakest in a given class logic defining D2. (shrink)

In this text, a variety of modal logics at the sentential, first-order, and second-order levels are developed with clarity, precision and philosophical insight. All of the S1-S5 modal logics of Lewis and Langford, among others, are constructed. A matrix, or many-valued semantics, for sentential modal logic is formalized, and an important result that no finite matrix can characterize any of the standard modal logics is proven. Exercises, some of which show independence results, help to develop (...) logical skills. A separate sentential modal logic of logical necessity in logical atomism is also constructed and shown to be complete and decidable. On the first-order level of the logic of logical necessity, the modal thesis of anti-essentialism is valid and every de re sentence is provably equivalent to a de dicto sentence. An elegant extension of the standard sentential modal logics into several first-order modal logics is developed. Both a first-order modal logic for possibilism containing actualism as a proper part as well as a separate modal logic for actualism alone are constructed for a variety of modal systems. Exercises on this level show the connections between modal laws and quantifier logic regarding generalization into, or out of, modal contexts and the conditions required for the necessity of identity and non-identity. Two types of second-order modal logics, one possibilist and the other actualist, are developed based on a distinction between existence-entailing concepts and concepts in general. The result is a deeper second-order analysis of possibilism and actualism as ontological frameworks. Exercises regarding second-order predicate quantifiers clarify the distinction between existence-entailing concepts and concepts in general. Modal Logic is ideally suited as a core text for graduate and undergraduate courses in modal logic, and as supplementary reading in courses on mathematical logic, formal ontology, and artificial intelligence. (shrink)

We prove strong completeness of the □-version and the ◊-version of a Gödel modal logic based on Kripke models where propositions at each world and the accessibility relation are both infinitely valued in the standard Gödel algebra [0,1]. Some asymmetries are revealed: validity in the first logic is reducible to the class of frames having two-valued accessibility relation and this logic does not enjoy the finite model property, while validity in the second logic requires truly (...) fuzzy accessibility relations and this logic has the finite model property. Analogues of the classical modal systems D, T, S4 and S5 are considered also, and the completeness results are extended to languages enriched with a discrete well ordered set of truth constants. (shrink)

In this paper we propose to enrich the four-valued modal logic associated to Monteiro's Tetravalent modal algebras (TMAs) with a deductive implication, that is, such that the Deduction Meta-theorem holds in the resulting logic. All this lead us to establish some new connections between TMAs, symmetric (or involutive) Boolean algebras, and modal algebras for extensions of S5, as well as their logical counterparts.

The aim of this paper is to study a particular family of non-deterministic semantics for modal logics that has eight truth-values. These eight-valued semantics can be traced back to Omori and Skurt (2016), where a particular member of this family was used to characterize the normal modal logic K. The truth-values in these semantics convey information about a proposition’s truth/falsity, whether the proposition is necessary/not necessary, and whether it is possible/not possible. Each of these triples is represented (...) by a unique value. In this paper we will study which modal logics can be obtained by changing the interpretation of the $$\Box $$ modality, assuming that the interpretation of other connectives stays constant. We will show what axioms are responsible for a particular interpretations of $$\Box $$. Furthermore, we will study subsets of these axioms. We show that some of the combinations of the axioms are equivalent to well-known modal axioms. We apply the level-valuation technique to all of the systems to regain the closure under the rule of necessitation. We also point out that some of the resulting logics are not sublogics of S5 and comment briefly on the corresponding frame conditions that are forced by these axioms. Ultimately, we sketch a proof of meta-completeness for all of these systems. (shrink)

In previous work we gave an approach, based on labelled natural deduction, for formalizing proof systems for a large class of propositional modal logics that includes K, D, T, B, S4, S4.2, KD45, and S5. Here we extend this approach to quantified modal logics, providing formalizations for logics with varying, increasing, decreasing, or constant domains. The result is modular with respect to both properties of the accessibility relation in the Kripke frame and the way domains of individuals change (...) between worlds. Our approach has a modular metatheory too; soundness, completeness and normalization are proved uniformly for every logic in our class. Finally, our work leads to a simple implementation of a modal logic theorem prover in a standard logical framework. (shrink)

In this paper I argue, that if it is metaphysically possible for it to have been the case that nothing existed, then it follows that the right modal logic cannot extend D, ruling out popular modal logics S4 and S5. I provisionally defend the claim that it is possible for nothing to have existed. I then consider the various ways of resisting the conclusion that the right modal logic is weaker than D.

In this paper I shall present some of the results I have obtained on modal theories which contain quantifiers for propositions. The paper is in two parts: in the first part I consider theories whose non-quantificational part is S5; in the second part I consider theories whose non-quantificational part is weaker than or not contained in S5. Unless otherwise stated, each theory has the same language L. This consists of a countable set V of propositional variables pl, pa, ... (...) , the operators v (or), ~ (not) and □ (necessarily), the universal quantifier (p), p a propositional variable, and brackets ( and ). The formulas of L are then defined in the usual way. (shrink)

The purpose of this work is to present Gentzen-style formulations of S5 and S4 based on sequents of higher levels. Sequents of level 1 are like ordinary sequents, sequents of level 1 have collections of sequents of level 1 on the left and right of the turnstile, etc. Rules for modal constants involve sequents of level 2, whereas rules for customary logical constants of first-order logic with identity involve only sequents of level 1. A restriction on Thinning on (...) the right of level 2, which when applied to Thinning on the right of level 1 produces intuitionistic out of classical logic (without changing anything else), produces S4 out of S5 (without changing anything else). This characterization of modal constants with sequents of level 2 is unique in the following sense. If constants which differ only graphically are given a formally identical characterization, they can be shown inter-replaceable (not only uniformly) with the original constants salva provability. Customary characterizations of modal constants with sequents of level 1, as well as characterizations in Hilbert-style axiomatizations, are not unique in this sense. This parallels the case with implication, which is not uniquely characterized in Hilbert-style axiomatizations, but can be uniquely characterized with sequents of level 1. These results bear upon theories of philosophical logic which attempt to characterize logical constants syntactically. They also provide an illustration of how alternative logics differ only in their structural rules, whereas their rules for logical constants are identical. (shrink)

Chakraborty and Banerjee have introduced a rough consequence logic based on the modal logic S5. This paper shows that rough consequence logics, with many of the same properties, can be based on modal logics as weak as K, with a simpler formulation than that of Chakraborty and Banerjee. Also provided are decision procedures for the rough consequence logics and equivalences and independence relations between various systems S and the rough consequence logics, based on them. It also (...) shows that each logic, based on such an S, is theorem equivalent, but not necessarily equivalent, to the modal logic M-S. The paper also shows that rough consequence logic, which was designed to handle rough equality, is somewhat limited for that purpose. (shrink)

Chakraborty and Banerjee have introduced a rough consequence logic based on the modal logic S5. This paper shows that rough consequence logics, with many of the same properties, can be based on modal logics as weak as K, with a simpler formulation than that of Chakraborty and Banerjee. Also provided are decision procedures for the rough consequence logics and equivalences and independence relations between various systems S and the rough consequence logics, based on them. It also (...) shows that each logic, based on such an S, is theorem equivalent, but not necessarily equivalent, to the modal logic M-S. The paper also shows that rough consequence logic, which was designed to handle rough equality, is somewhat limited for that purpose. (shrink)

Această lucrare oferă o expunere a unor trăsături ale unei teorii semantice a logicilor modale. Pentru o anumită extensiune cuantificată a S5, această teorie a fost prezentată în ‘A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic’ şi a fost rezumată în ‘Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic’ . Lucrarea de faţă se va concentra asupra unui aspect particular al teoriei – introducerea cuantificatorilor – şi se va restrînge în principal la o metodă particulară de a atinge acest scop. Accentul (...) lucrării va fi pur semantic şi în consecinţă se va omite folosirea tablourilor semantice, care este esenţială pentru o prezentare completă a teoriei . De asemenea, se va renunţa în mare parte la demonstraţii. (shrink)