Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Preface
- Introduction: What Is Modal Logic?
- 1 The System K: A Foundation for Modal Logic
- 2 Extensions of K
- 3 Basic Concepts of Intensional Semantics
- 4 Trees for K
- 5 The Accessibility Relation
- 6 Trees for Extensions of K
- 7 Converting Trees to Proofs
- 8 Adequacy of Propositional Modal Logics
- 9 Completeness Using Canonical Models
- 10 Axioms and Their Corresponding Conditions on R
- 11 Relationships between the Modal Logics
- 12 Systems for Quantified Modal Logic
- 13 Semantics for Quantified Modal Logics
- 14 Trees for Quantified Modal Logic
- 15 The Adequacy of Quantified Modal Logics
- 16 Completeness of Quantified Modal Logics Using Trees
- 17 Completeness Using Canonical Models
- 18 Descriptions
- 19 Lambda Abstraction
- 20 Conditionals
- Answers to Selected Exercises
- Bibliography of Works Cited
- Index
1 - The System K: A Foundation for Modal Logic
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2014
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Preface
- Introduction: What Is Modal Logic?
- 1 The System K: A Foundation for Modal Logic
- 2 Extensions of K
- 3 Basic Concepts of Intensional Semantics
- 4 Trees for K
- 5 The Accessibility Relation
- 6 Trees for Extensions of K
- 7 Converting Trees to Proofs
- 8 Adequacy of Propositional Modal Logics
- 9 Completeness Using Canonical Models
- 10 Axioms and Their Corresponding Conditions on R
- 11 Relationships between the Modal Logics
- 12 Systems for Quantified Modal Logic
- 13 Semantics for Quantified Modal Logics
- 14 Trees for Quantified Modal Logic
- 15 The Adequacy of Quantified Modal Logics
- 16 Completeness of Quantified Modal Logics Using Trees
- 17 Completeness Using Canonical Models
- 18 Descriptions
- 19 Lambda Abstraction
- 20 Conditionals
- Answers to Selected Exercises
- Bibliography of Works Cited
- Index
Summary
The Language of Propositional Modal Logic
We will begin our study of modal logic with a basic system called K in honor of the famous logician Saul Kripke. K serves as the foundation for a whole family of systems. Each member of the family results from strengthening K in some way. Each of these logics uses its own symbols for the expressions it governs. For example, modal (or alethic) logics use □ for necessity, tense logics use H for what has always been, and deontic logics use O for obligation. The rules of K characterize each of these symbols and many more. Instead of rewriting K rules for each of the distinct symbols of modal logic, it is better to present K using a generic operator. Since modal logics are the oldest and best known of those in the modal family, we will adopt □ for this purpose. So □ need not mean necessarily in what follows. It stands proxy for many different operators, with different meanings. In case the reading does not matter, you may simply call □A ‘box A’.
First we need to explain what a language for propositional modal logic is. The symbols of the language are ⊥, →, □; the propositional variables: p, q, r, p′, and so forth; and parentheses. The symbol ⊥ represents a contradiction, → represents ‘if . . then’, and □ is the modal operator. A sentence of propositional modal logic is defined as follows:
⊥ and any propositional variable is a sentence.
If A is a sentence, then □A is a sentence.
If A is a sentence and B is a sentence, then (A→B) is a sentence.
No other symbol string is a sentence.
In this book, we will use letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ for sentences. So A may be a propositional variable, p, or something more complex like (p→q), or ((p→ ⊥)→q). To avoid eyestrain, we usually drop the outermost set of parentheses. So we abbreviate (p→q) to p→q. (As an aside for those who are concerned about use-mention issues, here are the conventions of this book. We treat ‘⊥’, ‘→’, ‘□’, and so forth as used to refer to symbols with similar shapes. It is also understood that ‘□A’, for example, refers to the result of concatenating □ with the sentence A.)
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modal Logic for Philosophers , pp. 3 - 37Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013