The classesMatr( ) of all matrices (models) for structural finitistic entailments are investigated. The purpose of the paper is to prove three theorems: Theorem I.7, being the counterpart of the main theorem from Czelakowski [3], and Theorems II.2 and III.2 being the entailment counterparts of Bloom's results [1]. Theorem I.7 states that if a classK of matrices is adequate for , thenMatr( ) is the least class of matrices containingK and closed under the formation of ultraproducts, submatrices, strict homomorphisms and (...) strict homomorphic pre-images. Theorem II.2 in Section II gives sufficient and necessary conditions for a structural entailment to be finitistic. Section III contains theorems which characterize finitely based entailments. (shrink)

This paper is an attempt at providing a systematic presentation of Quantified Modal Logics . We present a set of modular, uniform, normalizing, sound and complete labelled sequent calculi for all QMLs whose frame properties can be expressed as a finite set of first-order sentences with equality. We first present CQK, a calculus for the logic QK, and then we extend it to any such logic QL. Each calculus, called CQL, is modular , uniform , normalizing and Kripke-sound and complete (...) for QL. We improve on the existing literature on the subject by extending the class of logics for which such a presentation is given, and by giving a new proof of soundness and completeness. (shrink)

Two characterizations are given of those structural consequence operations on a propositional language which can be defined via proofs from a finite number of polynomial rules.

In advanced books and courses on logic (e.g. Sm], BM]) Gentzen-type systems or their dual, tableaux, are described as techniques for showing validity of formulae which are more practical than the usual Hilbert-type formalisms. People who have learnt these methods often wonder why the Automated Reasoning community seems to ignore them and prefers instead the resolution method. Some of the classical books on AD (such as CL], Lo]) do not mention these methods at all. Others (such as Ro]) do, but (...) the connections and reasons for preference remain unclear after reading them (at least to the present author, and obviously also the authors of OS], in which a theorem-prover, based exclusively on tableaux, is described). The confusion becomes greater when the reader is introduced to Kowalski's form of a clause ( Ko], Bu]), which is nothing but a Gentzen's sequent of atomic formulae, and when he realizes that resolution is just a form of a Cut, and so that while the elimination of cuts is the principal tool in proof-theory, its use is the main technique in AD! (shrink)

Until not too many years ago, all logics except classical logic (and, perhaps, intuitionistic logic too) were considered to be things esoteric. Today this state of a airs seems to have completely been changed. There is a growing interest in many types of nonclassical logics: modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, paraconsistent logics, non-monotonic logics { the list is long. The diversity of systems that have been proposed and studied is so great that a need is felt by many researchers (...) to try to put some order in the present logical jungle. Thus Cl91], Ep90] and Wo88] are three recent books in which an attempt is made to develop a general theoretical framework for the study of logics. On the more pragmatic side, several systems have been developed with the goal of providing a computerized logical framework in which many di erent logical systems can be implemented in a uniform way. An example is the Edinburgh LF( HHP91]). (shrink)