Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:26:11.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FIRST-ORDER POSSIBILITY MODELS AND FINITARY COMPLETENESS PROOFS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

MATTHEW HARRISON-TRAINOR
MATTHEW HARRISON-TRAINOR*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington
*
*SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND E-mail: matthew.harrisontrainor@vuw.ac.nzURL: http://homepages.ecs.vuw.ac.nz/~harrism1/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article builds on Humberstone’s idea of defining models of propositional modal logic where total possible worlds are replaced by partial possibilities. We follow a suggestion of Humberstone by introducing possibility models for quantified modal logic. We show that a simple quantified modal logic is sound and complete for our semantics. Although Holliday showed that for many propositional modal logics, it is possible to give a completeness proof using a canonical model construction where every possibility consists of finitely many formulas, we show that this is impossible to do in the first-order case. However, one can still construct a canonical model where every possibility consists of a computable set of formulas and thus still of finitely much information.

Keywords

03B45modal logicpossibility semanticscompleteness proofs
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 637 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2019 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fitting, M. & Mendelsohn, R. L. (1998). First-Order Modal Logic. Synthese Library, Vol. 277. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganguli, S. & Nerode, A. (2004). Effective completeness theorems for modal logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 128(1–3), 141–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. W. (2001). Quantification in Modal Logic. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 267–323.Google Scholar
Ghilardi, S. (1989). Presheaf semantics and independence results for some nonclassical first-order logics. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 29(2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, R. & Mares, E. D. (2006). A general semantics for quantified modal logic. In Governatori, G., Hodkinson, I., and Venema, Y., editors. Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 6. London: College Publications, pp. 227–246.Google Scholar
Hale, B. (2013). Necessary Beings: An Essay on Ontology, Modality, and the Relations Between Them. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison-Trainor, M. (2016). Worldizations of possibility models, preprint.Google Scholar
Holliday, W. H. (2014). Partiality and adjointness in modal logic. In Goré, R., Kooi, B., and Kurucz, A., editors. Advances in Modal Logic. London: College Publications, pp. 313–332.Google Scholar
Holliday, W. H. (2015). Possibility frames and forcing for modal logic. Working paper, Logic and the Methodology of Science, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5462j5b6.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E. & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humberstone, I. L. (1981). From worlds to possibilities. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(3), 313–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kracht, M. & Kutz, O. (2007). Logically possible worlds and counterpart semantics for modal logic. In Jacquette, D., editor. Philosophy of Logic. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 943–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, B. & Zalta, E. N. (1994). In defense of the simplest quantified modal logic. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litak, T. (2005). On notions of completeness weaker than Kripke completeness. In Schmidt, R., Pratt-Hartmann, I., Reynolds, M., and Wansing, H., editors. Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 5. London: King’s College Publications, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar
Marker, D. (2002). Model Theory: An Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 217. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Skvortsov, D. P. & Shehtman, V. B. (1993). Maximal Kripke-type semantics for modal and superintuitionistic predicate logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 63(1), 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soare, R. I. (1987). Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., Bezhanishvili, N., & Holliday, W. H. (2016). A bimodal perspective on possibility semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, to appear.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, K. (2017). Results in modal correspondence theory for possibility semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar