Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:41:24.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grafted frames and S1 -completeness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Beihai Zhou
Beihai Zhou*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Peking University Beijing, 100871, P. R. China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A grafted frame is a new kind of frame which combines a modal frame and some relevance frames. A grafted model consists of a grafted frame and a truth-value assignment. In this paper, the grafted frame and the grafted model are constructed and used to show the completeness of S1. The implications of S1-completeness are discussed.

A grafted frame does not combine two kinds of frames simply by putting relations defined in the components together. That is, the resulting grafted frame is not in the form of <W,R,R′>, or more generally, in the form of <W, R, R′,R″>,…>, which consists of a non-empty set with several relations defined on it.1 Rather, it resembles the construction of fibering proposed by D. M. Gabbay and M. Finger (see [4] and [3]). On a grafted frame, some modal worlds, which belong to the initial modal frame, are attached by some relevance frames.

However, these two semantics have important differences. Consider the combined semantics involving semantics of relevance logic and modal logic. A fibred model and a grafted model proposed in this paper differ in the following respects. First, a fibred model is constructed from a class of modal models and a class of relevance models. A grafted model consists of a grafted frame and a truth-value assignment, where the grafted frame is constructed from a modal frame and some relevance frames, and the assignment is a union of a modal truth-value assignment VM and some relevance truth-value assignments VR. VM (VR) defined in this paper is not the same as the assignment contained in a modal (relevance) model. Second, in a fibred model each relevance world is associated (or fibred) with a modal model and each modal world with a relevance model.2 To be the grafted frame on which a grafted model is based, it is enough to have some modal worlds attached by some relevance frames. Moreover, no relevance world is associated with a modal frame in the grafted frame. Third, fibred models are intended to provide an appropriate semantics to combined logics. Grafted frames and grafted models are inspired to characterize S1, which, containing only one modality □, is not a combined logic. It is shown in this paper that S1 is sort of a meta-logic of the intersection of S0.4 and F, where S0.4, a new system proposed in this paper, is in turn a meta-logic of the relevance logic.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 1324 - 1338
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., Entailments: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.Google Scholar
[2] Bell, J. L. and Machover, M., A course in mathematical logic, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1977.Google Scholar
[3] Finger, M. and Gabbay, D. M., Adding a temporal dimension to a logic system, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 2 (1992), pp. 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Gabbay, D. M., Fibred semantics and the weaving of logics, Part I: Modal and intuitionistic logics, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), pp. 1057–1120.Google Scholar
[5] Hughes, G. E. and Cresswell, M. J., An introduction to modal logic, 2nd ed., Methuen, London, 1972.Google Scholar
[6] Jonsson, B. and Tarski, A., Boolean algebras with operators, American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 73 (19??), pp. 891–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Kanger, S., Provability in logic, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1957.Google Scholar
[8] Kracht, M. and Wolter, F., Properties of independently axiomatizable bimodal logics, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 1469–1485.Google Scholar
[9] Kripke, S. A., Semantical analysis of modal logic II; Non-normal modal logic propositional calculi, The theory of models (Addison, J. W., Henkin, L., and Tarksi, A., editors), North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 206–220.Google Scholar
[10] Lemmon, E. J., New foundation for Lewis modal systems, this Journal, vol. 22 (1957), pp. 176–186.Google Scholar
[11] Routley, R. and Meyer, R. K., The semantics of entailment. Truth, syntax and modality (Leblance, H., editor), North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 199–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar