Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

We expand first order models with a tolerance relation on thedomain. Intuitively, two elements stand in this relation if they are“cognitively close” for the agent who holds the model. This simplenotion turns out to be very powerful. It leads to a semanticcharacterization of the guarded fragment of Andréka, van Benthemand Németi, and highlights the strong analogies between modallogic and this fragment. Viewing the resulting logic – tolerance logic– dynamically it is a resource-conscious information processingalternative to classical first order logic. The differences areindicated by several examples.

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

  • Alechina, N., 1995, “Modal quantifiers,” Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, ILLC Dissertation Series 1995–20.

  • Andréka, H., van Benthem, J., and Németi, I., 1995, “Back and forth between modal logic and classical logic,” Bulletin of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 3, 685–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andréka, H., van Benthem, J., and Németi, I., 1998, “Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, K., 1983, “Some useful preservation theorems,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 48, 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grädel, E., 1999, “On the restraining power of guards,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 1719–1742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., and Veltman, F., 1996, “Coreference and modality,” pp. 179–213 in The Handbook of Comtempory Semantic Theory, S. Lappin, ed., Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, W., 1993, Model Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, E. and Marx, M., 2000, “Interpolation in guarded fragments,” Technical Report PP-2000–11, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Marx, M., 1997, “Complexity of modal logics of relations,” Technical Report ML–97–02, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Marx, M. and Venema, Y., 1997, Multi-Dimensional Modal Logic, Applied Logic Series, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulás, S., 1998, 'Taming first-order logic,” Logic Journal of the IGPL 6, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulás, S. and Marx, M., 1999, “Undecidable relativizations of algebras of relations,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 747–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Németi, I., 1995, “A fine-structure analysis of first-order logic,” pp. 221–247 in Arrow Logic and Multimodal Logics, M. Marx, L. Pólos, and M. Masuch, eds., Studies in Logic, Language and Information, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1983, Modal Logic and Classical Logic, Naples: Bibliopolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1996, Exploring Logical Dynamics, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venema, Y. and Marx, M., 1999, “A modal logic of relations,” pp. 124–167 in Logic at Work. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Elena Rasiowa, E. Orlowska, ed., Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marx, M. Tolerance Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 353–374 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011207512025

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011207512025

Navigation