On the Craig interpolation and the fixed point
|
|
- Clifton Houston
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 On the Craig interpolation and the fixed point property for GLP Lev D. Beklemishev December 11, 2007 Abstract We prove the Craig interpolation and the fixed point property for GLP by finitary methods. Konstantin Ignatiev [4], among other things, established the Craig interpolation and the fixed point property for Japaridze s polymodal provability logic GLP. However, it remained open if these results could be established by finitary methods formalizable in Peano arithmetic PA. (The question concerning the Craig interpolation was stated e.g. in [3].) In this note we provide such proofs. These proofs are based on our previous paper [1] where a complete Kripke semantics for GLP is given. In that paper, using only finitary methods, the system GLP is reduced to a certain natural subsystem, denoted J. 1 J is sound and complete w.r.t. a natural class of finite Kripke frames [1]. (It is well-known that GLP is not complete w.r.t. any class of Kripke frames.) We establish the Craig interpolation and the fixed point properties for J, which also enables us to extend them to GLP. Apart from the reduction of GLP to J established in ref. [1] our methods are very standard. 1 Preliminaries The system J is given by the following axiom schemata and inference rules. Axioms: (i) Boolean tautologies; (ii) [n](ϕ ψ) ([n]ϕ [n]ψ); 1 Similarly, Ignatiev [4] used a reduction of GLP to a weaker subsystem I, however the reducibility has not been established by finitary methods. 1
2 (iii) [n]([n]ϕ ϕ) [n]ϕ; (iv) [m]ϕ [n][m]ϕ, for m n. (v) m ϕ [n] m ϕ, for m < n. (vi) [m]ϕ [m][n]ϕ, for m n. Rules: modus ponens, ϕ [n]ϕ. GLP is obtained from J by adding the monotonicity schema [m]ϕ [n]ϕ, for m n. Ignatiev s logic I is obtained from J by deleting axiom schema (vi). The system J is sound and complete w.r.t. the class of Kripke frames satisfying the following conditions: R k is a upwards well-founded, transitive ordering relation on W, for each k 0; x, y (xr n y z (xr m z yr m z)) if m < n; x, y (xr m y & yr n z xr m z) if m n. (I) (J) Such frames will be called J-frames. One of the main results of ref. [1] states that GLP is reducible to J as follows. Let M(ϕ) := i<s ([m i]ϕ i [m i + 1]ϕ i ), where [m i ]ϕ i for i < s are all subformulas of ϕ of the form [k]ψ. Let + ϕ := ϕ i n[i]ϕ, where n := max i<s m i, and let M + (ϕ) := + M(ϕ). Then, GLP ϕ J M + (ϕ) ϕ. (Red) This result is proved by finitary methods based on Kripke semantics. 2 Craig interpolation theorem for J In the proof of the Craig interpolation theorem we shall use notation similar to Tait-style sequent calculus, that is: 2
3 Formulas are built-up from constants,, propositional variables p i, i 0, and their negations p i using,, and modalities n, [n], for each n 0; Sequents are finite sets of formulas (denoted Γ,, etc.) understood as disjunctions of their elements. We write Γ if J Γ. Negation ϕ of a formula ϕ is defined by de Morgan s rules and the following identities: [n]ϕ := n ϕ, n ϕ := [n] ϕ. Implication ϕ ψ is defined by ϕ ψ. As usual we write Γ, for Γ and Γ, ϕ for Γ {ϕ}. We use the following abbreviations: n Γ := { n ϕ : ϕ Γ}, [n]γ := {[n]ϕ : ϕ Γ}. n Γ denotes the result of prefixing each formula from Γ by a modality of the form m for some m n (m can be different for each formula from Γ). n Γ is similarly defined. Lemma 2.1 Suppose is a set of formulas of the form m ψ and [m]ψ with m < n. If, n Γ, Γ, n ϕ, ϕ then, n Γ, [n]ϕ. Proof. Assume J (, Γ, n Γ, n ϕ, ϕ), then by propositional logic J ( Γ n Γ) ([n]ϕ ϕ). Denoting ϕ 1 :=, ϕ 2 := Γ, and ϕ 3 := n Γ we obtain: J [n](ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ 3 ) [n]([n]ϕ ϕ) (1) [n]ϕ, by (iii). (2) However, if [m]ψ then J [m]ψ [n][m]ψ by (iv), and if m ψ, then J m ψ [n] m ψ by (v). Hence, J ϕ 1 [n]ϕ 1. Similarly, if [k]ψ n Γ then J [n]ψ [n](ψ [k]ψ), by (vi). Hence, We conclude J [n]ϕ 2 [n](ϕ 2 ϕ 3 ). J ϕ 1 [n]ϕ 2 [n](ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ 3 ) [n]ϕ, by (2). 3
4 It follows that J derives (, n Γ, [n]ϕ), as required. Let Var(ϕ) denote the set of variables occurring in ϕ and Var(Γ) := ϕ Γ Var(ϕ). We say that θ interpolates a pair of sequents (Γ; ) if Var(θ) Var(Γ) Var( ) and Γ, θ and θ,. (Γ; ) is inseparable if it does not have an interpolant. The following theorem subsumes both the completeness theorem for J and the Craig interpolation theorem. Theorem 1 The following statements are equivalent: (i) (Γ; ) has an interpolant; (ii) Γ, ; (iii) For all (finite) J-models W, W (Γ ). Proof. The implications (i) (ii) and (ii) (iii) are easy. We prove (iii) (i). Call a finite set Φ of formulas adequate if it is closed under subformulas, negation, the following operation: [n]ϕ, [m]ψ Φ [m]ϕ Φ, and for each variable p Φ contains p p. Let Op(Φ) = {n ω : [n]ϕ Φ, for some ϕ}. Clearly, every finite set of formulas Ψ can be extended to a finite adequate set Φ Ψ such that Op(Φ) = Op(Ψ) and Var(Φ) = Var(Ψ). Let us fix some finite adequate Φ. Below we shall only consider sequents Γ over Φ, that is, Γ Φ. An inseparable pair (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is maximal if for any other inseparable pair ( 1 ; 2 ) such that Γ 1 1 and Γ 2 2 one has Γ 1 = 1 and Γ 2 = 2. Lemma 2.2 Suppose (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is maximal inseparable. Then, for all ϕ, ψ Φ, and i = 1, 2: (i) (ϕ ψ) Γ i ϕ Γ i or ψ Γ i ; (ii) (ϕ ψ) Γ i ϕ Γ i and ψ Γ i ; (iii) If Var(ϕ) Var(Γ i ) then either ϕ Γ i or ϕ Γ i ; 4
5 (iv) For no ϕ both ϕ, ϕ Γ i. Proof. By the obvious symmetry it is sufficient to prove both claims for i = 1. (i) Assume ϕ, ψ Γ 1. We claim that at least one of the following two pairs is inseparable: (Γ 1, ϕ; Γ 2 ) and (Γ 1, ψ; Γ 2 ). Indeed, if θ 1 interpolates the first pair and θ 2 interpolates the second pair, then whence Γ 1, ϕ, θ 1 θ 1, Γ 2 Γ 1, ψ, θ 2 θ 2, Γ 2, Γ 1, ϕ ψ, θ 1 θ 2 θ 1 θ 2, Γ 2. Hence, θ 1 θ 2 interpolates (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ), a contradiction. It follows that (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is not maximal. (ii) Assume ϕ / Γ 1 then (Γ 1, ϕ; Γ 2 ) is inseparable. Otherwise, if θ interpolates this pair, then hence Γ 1, ϕ, θ and θ, Γ 2 Γ 1, ϕ ψ, θ and θ, Γ 2, that is, θ interpolates (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ), a contradiction. It follows that (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is not maximal. The case ψ / Γ 1 is similar. (iii) Assume Var(ϕ) Var(Γ 1 ) and ϕ, ϕ / Γ 1. Then one of the pairs (Γ 1, ϕ; Γ 2 ) and (Γ 1, ϕ; Γ 2 ) is inseparable. Otherwise, if then Γ 1, ϕ, θ 1 θ 1, Γ 2, Γ 1, ϕ, θ 2 θ 2, Γ 2, Γ 1, θ 1 θ 2 θ 1 θ 2, Γ 2. Hence, θ 1 θ 2 interpolates (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ), a contradiction. It follows that (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is not maximal. (iv) If ϕ, ϕ Γ 1 then Γ 1, and, Γ 2, which is impossible. Consider the following Kripke frame. Let W := {(Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) : (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is maximal inseparable over Φ}. For any x = (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) and y = ( 1 ; 2 ) in W let xr n y if the following conditions hold, for i = 1, 2: 5
6 1. Var(Γ i ) = Var( i ); 2. For any n ϕ Γ i, ϕ i and 3. For any m < n, k n (k Op(Φ) k ϕ i ); m ϕ Γ i m ϕ i ; 4. For some j {1, 2}, there is a n ϕ j such that n ϕ / Γ j. Lemma 2.3 W is a J-frame. Proof. Condition 4 guarantees the irreflexivity of the relations R n. Assume (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R n ( 1 ; 2 ), (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R m (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ) and m < n; we prove ( 1 ; 2 )R m (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ). Indeed, Var( i ) = Var(Γ i ) = Var(Σ i ), for i = 1, 2. If m ϕ i then m ϕ Γ i, since m < n. Hence ϕ, k ϕ Σ i, for k m, k Op(Φ). If k < m then k ϕ i k ϕ Γ i k ϕ Σ i. Finally, we have m ψ Σ j, m ψ / Γ j, for some ψ, j. Hence, m ψ / j because m < n. Assume (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R n ( 1 ; 2 ), ( 1 ; 2 )R m (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ) and m n; we prove (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R m (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ). Indeed, if m ϕ Γ i then m ϕ i, since m n. Hence ϕ, k ϕ Σ i, for k m, k Op(Φ). If k < m then k ϕ Γ i k ϕ i k ϕ Σ i. Finally, we have m ψ Σ j, m ψ / j, for some ψ, j. Hence, m ψ / Γ j because m n. Assume (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R m ( 1 ; 2 ), ( 1 ; 2 )R n (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ) and m n; we prove (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R m (Σ 1 ; Σ 2 ). Let k Op(Φ). If m k n, then m ϕ Γ i implies k ϕ i and k ϕ Σ i. If k n, then m ϕ Γ i implies n ϕ i and ϕ, k ϕ Σ i. Finally, there is a ψ such that m ψ j, m ψ / Γ j. Since m n we also have m ψ Σ j, and we are done. We define the evaluation of propositional variables on W by letting (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) p p / Γ 1 Γ 2. ( ) Lemma 2.4 For any ϕ Γ 1 Γ 2 one has (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) ϕ. Proof. Induction on the length of ϕ. We consider the following cases. Case 1: ϕ =. If Γ 1 then Γ 1, and, Γ 2, hence (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) is not inseparable. Thus, / Γ 1 and similarly / Γ 2. Case 2: ϕ =. We always have (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ). 6
7 Case 3: ϕ = p. By ( ). Case 4: ϕ = p. Suppose p Γ 1. If p Γ 1, then Γ 1, and, Γ 2, a contradiction. If p Γ 2, then Γ 1, p and p, Γ 2, also contradicting the inseparability of (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ). Hence, p / Γ 1 Γ 2 which entails (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) p and (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) p. Case 5: ϕ = ϕ 1 ϕ 2. If ϕ Γ i then by Lemma 2.2 either ϕ 1 Γ i or ϕ 2 Γ i. Hence, (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) ϕ 1 or (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) ϕ 2. Therefore, (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) ϕ 1 ϕ 2. Case 6: ϕ = ϕ 1 ϕ 2. This is established dually by the same lemma. Case 7: ϕ = n ϕ 0. Assume ϕ Γ 1. If (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R n ( 1 ; 2 ) then ϕ 0 1 and by the induction hypothesis ( 1 ; 2 ) ϕ 0. Since this holds for all such ( 1 ; 2 ), we have (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) n ϕ 0. Case 8: ϕ = [n]ϕ 0. This is the central case. Assume [n]ϕ 0 Γ 1. Let i for i = 1, 2 denote the union of the following sets of formulas: 1. Φ i 1 := { m ψ : m ψ Γ i, m < n}; 2. Φ i 2 := {[m]ψ : [m]ψ Γ i, m < n}; 3. Φ i 3 := { k ψ, ψ : n ψ Γ i, k n, k Op(Φ)}; 4. Φ i 4 := {p p : p Var(Γ i)}. We show that the pair ( 1, n ϕ 0, ϕ 0 ; 2 ) is inseparable. Assume otherwise, then for some θ, where and 1, n ϕ 0, ϕ 0, θ and θ, 2, Var(θ) Var( 1, n ϕ 0, ϕ 0 ) = Var(Γ 1 ) Var(θ) Var( 2 ) = Var(Γ 2 ). The equalities hold because of the components Φ i 4. Since Φ i 4 is equivalent to and can be dropped from a disjunction, we obviously have Φ 1 1, Φ 1 2, Φ 1 3, n θ, θ, n ϕ 0, ϕ 0 and hence Φ 1 1, Φ 1 2, { n ψ : ψ Γ 1 }, n θ, [n]ϕ 0, 7
8 by Lemma 2.1. All the formulas in this sequent except for n θ belong to Γ 1, hence Γ 1, n θ. On the other hand, from θ, 2 we similarly obtain Φ 2 1, Φ 2 2, { n ψ : ψ Γ 2 }, [n] θ and hence Γ 2, n θ. It follows that n θ interpolates (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ), which is impossible. Thus, ( 1, n ϕ 0, ϕ 0 ; 2 ) is inseparable and can be extended to a maximal inseparable pair ( 1 ; 2 ) such that Var( i ) = Var( i) = Var(Γ i ) for i = 1, 2. We observe that (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 )R n ( 1 ; 2 ). Indeed, Conditions 1, 2 and 4 are obviously satisfied. Also, if m ψ Γ i and m < n, then m ψ i i. On the other hand, if m < n and m ψ i then Var( m ψ) Var(Γ i) and hence either m ψ Γ i or m ψ Γ i, by Lemma 2.2 (iii). Yet, [m] ψ Γ i implies [m] ψ i, whence i contains both m ψ and its negation contradicting Lemma 2.2 (iv). Thus, we conclude m ψ Γ i, as required. Since ϕ 0 1, by the induction hypothesis we obtain ( 1 ; 2 ) ϕ 0. Hence, (Γ 1 ; Γ 2 ) [m]ϕ 0. From the previous lemma we obtain a proof of Theorem 1 in a standard way. Assume (Γ; ) is inseparable. Extend Γ to a finite adequate set Φ and build the corresponding model W. Let x be any maximal inseparable pair of sequents over Φ containing (Γ; ). By Lemma 2.4, W, x (Γ ). Corollary 2.5 (Craig interpolation for J) If J ϕ ψ, then there is a formula θ such that Var(θ) Var(ϕ) Var(ψ) and J ϕ θ and J θ ψ. Corollary 2.6 Craig interpolation property holds for GLP. Proof. If GLP ϕ ψ then J M + (ϕ ψ) (ϕ ψ) by (Red). Since every subformula [i]ξ of ϕ ψ belongs either to ϕ or to ψ, we have J M + (ϕ) ϕ (M + (ψ) ψ). Let θ be the corresponding interpolant. Then obviously GLP ϕ θ, GLP θ ψ, and Var(θ) Var(ϕ) Var(ψ). 8
9 Open questions: 1. Can we also obtain an interpolant θ satisfying an additional condition Op(θ) Op(ϕ) Op(ψ), that is, if modalities occurring in θ occur both in ϕ and in ψ? The given proof of Theorem 1 only implies that Op(θ) is contained in Op(ϕ) Op(ψ). The stronger interpolation theorem obviously fails for the GLP, as the example [0]p [1]p shows. 2. Does the sequential inference rule formulated in Lemma 2.1 provide a complete cut-free sequent calculus for J, taken together with a standard Tait-style axiomatization of propositional logic? 3. Does J satisfy uniform interpolation? Lindon interpolation? 3 Fixed points As a standard corollary of interpolation we obtain Beth definability property for J and GLP. Corollary 3.1 (Beth definability for J) If q does not occur in ϕ(p) and J ϕ(p) ϕ(q) (p q), then there is a ψ such that Var(ψ) = Var(ϕ(p)) \ {p} and J ϕ(p) (p ψ). Proof. Let ψ be the interpolant of the implication J ϕ(p) p (ϕ(q) q), A similar property obviously holds for GLP. We obtain the fixed point property for J and GLP using the method of Smoryński and Bernardi (cf. [2]). First, we prove the so-called Bernardi lemma for J. Lemma 3.2 Suppose q does not occur in ϕ(p) and p only occurs in ϕ(p) within the scope of a modality. Then J proves the following formula B ϕ : + (p ϕ(p)) + (q ϕ(q)) (p q). 9
10 Proof. We show that B ϕ is valid in all finite J-models W. With every x W we associate a sequence of numbers D(x) := d 0 (x), d 1 (x),..., d n (x), where d i (x) denotes the depth of x in W w.r.t. relation R i inductively defined by d i (x) := sup{d i (y) + 1 : xr i y}, and n is the maximal number such that R n is non-empty on W. We consider a lexicographic ordering of such sequences. Lemma 3.3 For all x, y W and any k, if xr k y then D(x) < D(y). Proof. Suppose xr k y. For each i < k we have d i (x) = d i (y), since by (I) the same points z are R i -accessible from x and from y. Also, obviously d k (x) > d k (y), hence the result. Suppose W is given and W B ϕ. By considering a suitable generated submodel we may assume that W p ϕ(p), q ϕ(q) ( ) and W p q. Select x W such that p and q have have different evaluations at x and D(x) is the minimal possible. By ( ) we have that ϕ(p) and ϕ(q) have different evaluations at x. Since p only occurs within the scope of modality in ϕ(p), ϕ(p) is a boolean combination of formulas of the form [k]ψ(p) and variables different from p, q. Hence, there must exist a subformula [k]ψ(p) of ϕ(p) such that [k]ψ(p) and [k]ψ(q) have different evaluations at x. It follows that for some y such that xr k y the formulas ψ(p) and ψ(q) have different evaluations at y. Let W y denote the submodel of W generated by y. For each z W y one has xr i z, for some i. (If yr m z and m < k then xr m z by (I), and if m k then xr k z by (J).) Hence, for all z W y, D(z) < D(x). Therefore, by the choice of x, W y p q. It follows that for all subformulas θ(p) of ϕ(p), W y θ(p) θ(q). In particular, a contradiction. W, y ψ(p) ψ(q), Corollary 3.4 (Fixed points in J) Suppose q does not occur in ϕ(p) and p only occurs in ϕ(p) within the scope of a modality. Then there is a ψ (a fixed point of ϕ(p)) such that Var(ψ) = Var(ϕ(p)) \ {p} and J ψ ϕ(ψ). Moreover, any two fixed points of ϕ(p) are provably equivalent in J. 10
11 Proof. Apply Beth definability property for the formula + (p ϕ(p)). Then we obtain a formula ψ such that J + (p ϕ(p)) (p ψ). We show that ψ is the required fixed point. Lemma 3.5 J + (p ψ) (p ϕ(p)). Proof. Consider a finite J-model W and a node x W with the minimal D(x) such that W, x + (p ψ) and W, x p ϕ(p). As before, we obviously have W x p ψ. Let p be a fresh variable evaluated as follows: W, y p iff W, y p, for all y x, and W, x p iff W, x p. If y W x and y x then W, y p ϕ(p ), since p and p have the same evaluation above x and D(x) was chosen minimally. Since p occurs within the scope of a modality in ϕ(p) we have W, x ϕ(p) iff W, x ϕ(p ). Therefore, W, x p ϕ(p ), since p and p have opposite evaluations at x. We conclude that W, x + (p ϕ(p )) and by the choice of ψ we must have W, x p ψ. This implies W, x p ψ p, quod non. As an immediate corollary of this lemma (substituting ψ for p) we obtain J ψ ϕ(ψ). If ψ 1 and ψ 2 are two fixed points of ϕ(p), then obviously J + (ψ i ϕ(ψ i )), for i = 1, 2. Hence, by Bernardi s lemma J ψ 1 ψ 2. Corollary 3.6 The fixed-point property holds for GLP. Proof. Given a formula ϕ(p) in which p only occurs within the scope of a modality, we obtain a ψ such that J ψ ϕ(ψ). Obviously, the same equivalence also holds in a stronger system GLP. To show the uniqueness, assume GLP ψ 1 ϕ(ψ 1 ), for another formula ψ 1. Denoting θ := ψ 1 ϕ(ψ 1 ) we obtain by (Red): It follows that J M + (θ) (ψ 1 ϕ(ψ 1 )). J + M + (θ) + (ψ 1 ϕ(ψ 1 )). Since we also have J + (ψ ϕ(ψ)), this implies J + M + (θ) (ψ 1 ψ), by Bernardi s lemma. Taking into account that GLP + M + (θ), for any formula θ, this implies GLP ψ ψ 1. 11
12 References [1] L.D. Beklemishev. Kripke semantics for Japaridze s provability logic. Logic Group Preprint Series 260, University of Utrecht, November [2] G. Boolos. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [3] K.N. Ignatiev. The closed fragment of Dzhaparidze s polymodal logic and the logic of Σ 1 -conservativity. ITLI Prepublication Series X 92 02, University of Amsterdam, [4] K.N. Ignatiev. On strong provability predicates and the associated modal logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58: ,
A simplified proof of arithmetical completeness theorem for provability logic GLP
A simplified proof of arithmetical completeness theorem for provability logic GLP L. Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute Gubkina str. 8, 119991 Moscow, Russia e-mail: bekl@mi.ras.ru March 11, 2011
More informationPositive provability logic
Positive provability logic Lev Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow November 12, 2013 Strictly positive modal formulas The language of modal logic extends that
More informationarxiv: v4 [math.lo] 6 Apr 2018
Complexity of the interpretability logic IL arxiv:1710.05599v4 [math.lo] 6 Apr 2018 Luka Mikec luka.mikec@math.hr Fedor Pakhomov pakhfn@mi.ras.ru Monday 2 nd April, 2018 Abstract Mladen Vuković vukovic@math.hr
More informationOrdinal Completeness of Bimodal Provability Logic GLB
Ordinal Completeness of Bimodal Provability Logic GLB Dedicated to Leo Esakia on the occasion of his 75-th birthday Lev Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute, Gubkina 8, 119991, Moscow, Russia Abstract.
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationA SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2. Abstract
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 33/1 (2004), pp. 11 21 Katsumi Sasaki 1 Shigeo Ohama A SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2 Abstract To discuss Rosser sentences, Guaspari and Solovay
More informationNatural Deduction. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson
Natural Deduction Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson Outline 1. An example 1. Validity by truth table 2. Validity by proof 2. What s a proof 1. Proof checker 3. Rules of
More informationTR : Binding Modalities
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2012 TR-2012011: Binding Modalities Sergei N. Artemov Tatiana Yavorskaya (Sidon) Follow this and
More informationThe Modal Logic of Pure Provability
The Modal Logic of Pure Provability Samuel R. Buss Department of Mathematics University of California, San Diego July 11, 2002 Abstract We introduce a propositional modal logic PP of pure provability in
More informationHypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models
Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models Agata Ciabattoni Mauro Ferrari Abstract In this paper we define cut-free hypersequent calculi for some intermediate logics semantically
More informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More informationcase of I? 1 (over P A? ) was essentially treated in [11], where the authors show that 2 consequences of that theory are contained in EA, cf also [6].
Parameter free induction and reection Lev D. Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute Vavilova 42, 117966 Moscow, Russia e-mail: lev@bekl.mian.su November 21, 1996 Abstract We give a precise characterization
More informationGödel s Completeness Theorem
A.Miller M571 Spring 2002 Gödel s Completeness Theorem We only consider countable languages L for first order logic with equality which have only predicate symbols and constant symbols. We regard the symbols
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationInterpolation via translations
Interpolation via translations Walter Carnielli 2,3 João Rasga 1,3 Cristina Sernadas 1,3 1 DM, IST, TU Lisbon, Portugal 2 CLE and IFCH, UNICAMP, Brazil 3 SQIG - Instituto de Telecomunicações, Portugal
More informationKripke Models of Transfinite Provability Logic
Kripke Models of Transfinite Provability Logic David Fernández-Duque 1 Universidad de Sevilla Joost J. Joosten 2 Universitat de Barcelona Abstract For any ordinal Λ, we can define a polymodal logic GLP
More informationModal and temporal logic
Modal and temporal logic N. Bezhanishvili I. Hodkinson C. Kupke Imperial College London 1 / 83 Overview Part II 1 Soundness and completeness. Canonical models. 3 lectures. 2 Finite model property. Filtrations.
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationA MODAL EXTENSION OF FIRST ORDER CLASSICAL LOGIC Part I
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 32/4 (2003), pp. 165 177 George Tourlakis 1 Francisco Kibedi A MODAL EXTENSION OF FIRST ORDER CLASSICAL LOGIC Part I Abstract We formalize a fragment of the metatheory
More informationChapter 2. Assertions. An Introduction to Separation Logic c 2011 John C. Reynolds February 3, 2011
Chapter 2 An Introduction to Separation Logic c 2011 John C. Reynolds February 3, 2011 Assertions In this chapter, we give a more detailed exposition of the assertions of separation logic: their meaning,
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationInterpretability Logic
Interpretability Logic Logic and Applications, IUC, Dubrovnik vukovic@math.hr web.math.pmf.unizg.hr/ vukovic/ Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb September, 2013 Interpretability
More informationModal Logic XX. Yanjing Wang
Modal Logic XX Yanjing Wang Department of Philosophy, Peking University May 6th, 2016 Advanced Modal Logic (2016 Spring) 1 Completeness A traditional view of Logic A logic Λ is a collection of formulas
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems are
More informationMathematics for linguists
Mathematics for linguists WS 2009/2010 University of Tübingen January 7, 2010 Gerhard Jäger Mathematics for linguists p. 1 Inferences and truth trees Inferences (with a finite set of premises; from now
More informationSyntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic
Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic 1 Defining Logics L, M, = L - the language of the logic M - a class of models = - satisfaction relation M M, ϕ L: M = ϕ is read as M satisfies
More informationReflection principles and provability algebras in formal arithmetic
Reflection principles and provability algebras in formal arithmetic L.D. Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute Gubkina str. 8, 117966 Moscow, Russia e-mail: bekl@mi.ras.ru Utrecht University, the
More informationCHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning
More informationPropositional Dynamic Logic
Propositional Dynamic Logic Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Syntax and Semantics 2 2.1 Syntax................................. 2 2.2 Semantics............................... 2 3 Hilbert-style axiom system
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1)
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1) SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems
More informationEquivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox
Eric Schechter Equivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox Abstract. Relevant logic is a proper subset of classical logic. It does not include among itstheoremsanyof positive paradox A (B A) mingle A (A
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 8 Mar 2019
The Reduction Property Revisited Nika Pona 1 and Joost J. Joosten 1 arxiv:1903.03331v1 [math.lo] 8 Mar 2019 University of Barcelona Abstract. In this paper we will study an important but rather technical
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationIntroduction to Intuitionistic Logic
Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic August 31, 2016 We deal exclusively with propositional intuitionistic logic. The language is defined as follows. φ := p φ ψ φ ψ φ ψ φ := φ and φ ψ := (φ ψ) (ψ φ). A
More informationExogenous Semantics Approach to Enriching Logics
Exogenous Semantics Approach to Enriching Logics Paulo Mateus, Amílcar Sernadas, and Cristina Sernadas Abstract. The exogenous semantics approach to enriching a logic consists in defining each model in
More informationCompleteness for coalgebraic µ-calculus: part 2. Fatemeh Seifan (Joint work with Sebastian Enqvist and Yde Venema)
Completeness for coalgebraic µ-calculus: part 2 Fatemeh Seifan (Joint work with Sebastian Enqvist and Yde Venema) Overview Overview Completeness of Kozen s axiomatisation of the propositional µ-calculus
More informationOn Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions
arxiv:cs/0407031v1 [cs.lo] 12 Jul 2004 On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions Pavel Naumov Computer Science Pennsylvania State University Middletown, PA 17057 naumov@psu.edu June 14, 2018 Abstract
More informationModal Dependence Logic
Modal Dependence Logic Jouko Väänänen Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands J.A.Vaananen@uva.nl Abstract We
More informationcse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018
cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics CHAPTER 7 SLIDES Slides Set 1 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More information2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary Aaron Tan 21 25 August 2017 1 2. The Logic of Compound Statements 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Statements; Compound Statements; Statement Form (Propositional
More informationClassical Propositional Logic
The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction January 16, 2013 The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction Logic Logic is the science of inference. Given a body of information,
More informationProof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics
Proof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics Ryo Kashima Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Tokyo Institute of Technology Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan. e-mail: kashima@is.titech.ac.jp
More informationRelational Reasoning in Natural Language
1/67 Relational Reasoning in Natural Language Larry Moss ESSLLI 10 Course on Logics for Natural Language Inference August, 2010 Adding transitive verbs the work on R, R, and other systems is joint with
More informationPropositional Calculus - Deductive Systems
Propositional Calculus - Deductive Systems Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Deductive proofs (1/3) Suppose we want to know
More informationSyntax. Notation Throughout, and when not otherwise said, we assume a vocabulary V = C F P.
First-Order Logic Syntax The alphabet of a first-order language is organised into the following categories. Logical connectives:,,,,, and. Auxiliary symbols:.,,, ( and ). Variables: we assume a countable
More informationPropositional Logic: Models and Proofs
Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs C. R. Ramakrishnan CSE 505 1 Syntax 2 Model Theory 3 Proof Theory and Resolution Compiled at 11:51 on 2016/11/02 Computing with Logic Propositional Logic CSE 505
More informationFrom Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics
From Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics Ori Lahav School of Computer Science Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel Email: orilahav@post.tau.ac.il Abstract We provide a general method
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationHENNESSY MILNER THEOREM FOR INTERPRETABILITY LOGIC. Abstract
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 34/4 (2005), pp. 195 201 Mladen Vuković HENNESSY MILNER THEOREM FOR INTERPRETABILITY LOGIC Abstract Interpretability logic is a modal description of the interpretability
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationJohan van Benthem and Löb s Logic
Johan van Benthem and Löb s Logic Albert Visser Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Utrecht University Celebration Event in Honour of Johan van Benthem Amsterdam September 27, 2014 1 Overview 2 Overview
More informationPUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT MATHÉMATIQUE Nouvelle série, tome 35 (49), 1984, pp INTUITIONISTIC DOUBLE NEGATION AS A NECESSITY OPERATOR Kosta Do»
PUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT MATHÉMATIQUE Nouvelle série, tome 35 (49), 1984, pp. 15 20 INTUITIONISTIC DOUBLE NEGATION AS A NECESSITY OPERATOR Kosta Do»sen Abstract. An intuitionistic propositional modal
More informationOn sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science
On sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science L. Gordeev Uni-Tübingen, Uni-Ghent, PUC-Rio PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, October 13, 2015 1. Sequent calculus (SC): Basics -1- 1. Sequent
More informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More informationAn Independence Relation for Sets of Secrets
Sara Miner More Pavel Naumov An Independence Relation for Sets of Secrets Abstract. A relation between two secrets, known in the literature as nondeducibility, was originally introduced by Sutherland.
More information360 Giorgi Japaridze and Dick de Jongh 1. Introduction, Solovay's theorems Godel's incompleteness theorems and Church's undecidability theorem for ari
CHAPTER VII The Logic of Provability Giorgi Japaridze Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6389, USA Dick de Jongh Institute for Logic,
More informationSystems of modal logic
499 Modal and Temporal Logic Systems of modal logic Marek Sergot Department of Computing Imperial College, London utumn 2008 Further reading: B.F. Chellas, Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University
More informationON DEFINABILITY IN MULTIMODAL LOGIC
THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 2, Number 3, September 2009 ON DEFINABILITY IN MULTIMODAL LOGIC JOSEPH Y. HALPERN Computer Science Department, Cornell University DOV SAMET The Faculty of Management,
More informationThe Logic of Proofs, Semantically
The Logic of Proofs, Semantically Melvin Fitting Dept. Mathematics and Computer Science Lehman College (CUNY), 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West Bronx, NY 10468-1589 e-mail: fitting@lehman.cuny.edu web page:
More informationModal Logic: Exercises
Modal Logic: Exercises KRDB FUB stream course www.inf.unibz.it/ gennari/index.php?page=nl Lecturer: R. Gennari gennari@inf.unibz.it June 6, 2010 Ex. 36 Prove the following claim. Claim 1. Uniform substitution
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationBETWEEN THE LOGIC OF PARMENIDES AND THE LOGIC OF LIAR
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 38:3/4 (2009), pp. 123 133 Kordula Świȩtorzecka BETWEEN THE LOGIC OF PARMENIDES AND THE LOGIC OF LIAR Abstract In the presented text we shall focus on some specific
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More informationCanonical models for normal logics (Completeness via canonicity)
499 Modal and Temporal Logic Canonical models for normal logics (Completeness via canonicity) Marek Sergot Department of Computing Imperial College, London Autumn 2008 Further reading: B.F. Chellas, Modal
More informationPropositional Logic: Deductive Proof & Natural Deduction Part 1
Propositional Logic: Deductive Proof & Natural Deduction Part 1 CS402, Spring 2016 Shin Yoo Deductive Proof In propositional logic, a valid formula is a tautology. So far, we could show the validity of
More informationPropositional primal logic with disjunction
Propositional primal logic with disjunction Lev Beklemishev, Yuri Gurevich March 2011 Abstract Gurevich and Neeman introduced Distributed Knowledge Authorization Language (DKAL). The world of DKAL consists
More informationOverview of Logic and Computation: Notes
Overview of Logic and Computation: Notes John Slaney March 14, 2007 1 To begin at the beginning We study formal logic as a mathematical tool for reasoning and as a medium for knowledge representation The
More informationOn the limit existence principles in elementary arithmetic and Σ 0 n-consequences of theories
On the limit existence principles in elementary arithmetic and Σ 0 n-consequences of theories Dedicated to Wolfram Pohlers on the occasion of his 60-th birthday Lev D. Beklemishev a,1 a Department of Philosophy,
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic V
An Introduction to Modal Logic V Axiomatic Extensions and Classes of Frames Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, November 7 th 2013
More informationNONSTANDARD MODELS AND KRIPKE S PROOF OF THE GÖDEL THEOREM
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 41, Number 1, 2000 NONSTANDARD MODELS AND KRIPKE S PROOF OF THE GÖDEL THEOREM HILARY PUTNAM Abstract This lecture, given at Beijing University in 1984, presents
More informationThe semantics of propositional logic
The semantics of propositional logic Readings: Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Huth and Ryan. In this module, we will nail down the formal definition of a logical formula, and describe the semantics of propositional
More informationModule 5 K and Equivalent Systems
Module 5 K and Equivalent Systems G. J. Mattey July 8, 2010 Contents 1 The Semantical System KI 2 1.1 Specification of KI....................................... 2 1.2 Semantical Properties and Relations
More informationKRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH 1. INTRODUCTION
KRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH RICHARD G HECK, JR 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this note is to give a simple, easily accessible proof of the existence of the minimal fixed point, and of various maximal fixed
More informationCooperation of Background Reasoners in Theory Reasoning by Residue Sharing
Cooperation of Background Reasoners in Theory Reasoning by Residue Sharing Cesare Tinelli tinelli@cs.uiowa.edu Department of Computer Science The University of Iowa Report No. 02-03 May 2002 i Cooperation
More informationKrivine s Intuitionistic Proof of Classical Completeness (for countable languages)
Krivine s Intuitionistic Proof of Classical Completeness (for countable languages) Berardi Stefano Valentini Silvio Dip. Informatica Dip. Mat. Pura ed Applicata Univ. Torino Univ. Padova c.so Svizzera
More informationRestricted truth predicates in first-order logic
Restricted truth predicates in first-order logic Thomas Bolander 1 Introduction It is well-known that there exist consistent first-order theories that become inconsistent when we add Tarski s schema T.
More informationFormal (natural) deduction in propositional logic
Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic Lila Kari University of Waterloo Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 67 I know what you re thinking about,
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationRules of Inference. Lecture 1 Tuesday, September 24. Rosalie Iemhoff Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Rules of Inference Lecture 1 Tuesday, September 24 Rosalie Iemhoff Utrecht University, The Netherlands TbiLLC 2013 Gudauri, Georgia, September 23-27, 2013 1 / 26 Questions Given a theorem, what are the
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 26 May 2013
On the complexity of the closed fragment of Japaridze s provability logic Fedor Pakhomov Steklov Mathematical Institute, Moscow pakhfn@mi.ras.ru arxiv:1305.6065v1 [math.lo] 26 May 2013 May 2013 Abstract
More informationNon-Analytic Tableaux for Chellas s Conditional Logic CK and Lewis s Logic of Counterfactuals VC
Australasian Journal of Logic Non-Analytic Tableaux for Chellas s Conditional Logic CK and Lewis s Logic of Counterfactuals VC Richard Zach Abstract Priest has provided a simple tableau calculus for Chellas
More informationGeneral methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1
General methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1 Björn Lellmann and Revantha Ramanayake TU Wien Tutorial co-located with TABLEAUX 2017, FroCoS 2017 and ITP 2017 September 24, 2017. Brasilia.
More informationKazimierz SWIRYDOWICZ UPPER PART OF THE LATTICE OF EXTENSIONS OF THE POSITIVE RELEVANT LOGIC R +
REPORTS ON MATHEMATICAL LOGIC 40 (2006), 3 13 Kazimierz SWIRYDOWICZ UPPER PART OF THE LATTICE OF EXTENSIONS OF THE POSITIVE RELEVANT LOGIC R + A b s t r a c t. In this paper it is proved that the interval
More informationCooperation of Background Reasoners in Theory Reasoning by Residue Sharing
Cooperation of Background Reasoners in Theory Reasoning by Residue Sharing Cesare Tinelli (tinelli@cs.uiowa.edu) Department of Computer Science The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA, USA Abstract. We propose
More informationarxiv: v3 [math.lo] 3 Oct 2017
arxiv:1605.08867v3 [math.lo] 3 Oct 2017 Worms and Spiders: Reflection Calculi and Ordinal Notation Systems David Fernández-Duque Institute de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Toulouse University,
More informationECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic
ECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic Jeffrey Mark Siskind School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Spring 2018 Siskind (Purdue ECE) ECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic Spring 2018 1 / 23 What
More information4 Kosta Do»sen models the modal relation will be as general as possible, and hence HK± 0 will be in the same position as the modal logic K based on th
PUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT MATHÉMATIQUE Nouvelle série, tome 35 (49), 1984, pp. 3 14 NEGATIVE MODAL OPERATORS IN INTUITIONISTIC LOGIC Kosta Do»sen Abstract. Modal operators which correspond to impossibility
More informationFirst-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms
First-Order Logic 1 Syntax Domain of Discourse The domain of discourse for first order logic is FO structures or models. A FO structure contains Relations Functions Constants (functions of arity 0) FO
More informationPropositional Calculus - Natural deduction Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Natural deduction Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula Á is valid To prove a given formula Á ` Á Syntactic
More informationOutline. Overview. Syntax Semantics. Introduction Hilbert Calculus Natural Deduction. 1 Introduction. 2 Language: Syntax and Semantics
Introduction Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter Software Technology Group Fachbereich Informatik Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Sommersemester 2010 Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter ( Software Technology Group Fachbereich
More informationFuzzy Does Not Lie! Can BAŞKENT. 20 January 2006 Akçay, Göttingen, Amsterdam Student No:
Fuzzy Does Not Lie! Can BAŞKENT 20 January 2006 Akçay, Göttingen, Amsterdam canbaskent@yahoo.com, www.geocities.com/canbaskent Student No: 0534390 Three-valued logic, end of the critical rationality. Imre
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationOn Definability in Multimodal Logic
On Definability in Multimodal Logic Joseph Y. Halpern Computer Science Department Cornell University, U.S.A. halpern@cs.cornell.edu Dov Samet The Faculty of Management Tel Aviv University, Israel samet@post.tau.ac.il
More informationPeano Arithmetic. CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook) Fall, Goals Now
CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook) Fall, 2008 Peano Arithmetic Goals Now 1) We will introduce a standard set of axioms for the language L A. The theory generated by these axioms is denoted PA and called Peano
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 An Alternative View of Implication and Double Implication So far, we have understood as a shorthand of However,
More informationFiltrations and Basic Proof Theory Notes for Lecture 5
Filtrations and Basic Proof Theory Notes for Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit March 13, 2012 1 Filtration Let M = W, R, V be a Kripke model. Suppose that Σ is a set of formulas closed under subformulas. We write
More informationPROBABILITY LOGICS WITH VECTOR VALUED MEASURES. Vladimir Ristić
47 Kragujevac J. Math. 32 2009) 47-60. PROBABILITY LOGICS WITH VECTOR VALUED MEASURES Vladimir Ristić Faculty of Teacher Education, Milana Mijalkovića 14, 35000 Jagodina, Serbia e-mail: vladimir.ristic@pefja.kg.ac.yu)
More information