Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-g2njx Total loading time: 1.987 Render date: 2021-10-25T13:16:34.516Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

CARNAP’S PROBLEM FOR MODAL LOGIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2021

DENIS BONNAY
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITÉ PARIS NANTERRE 200 AVENUE DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE 92000 NANTERRE, FRANCE E-mail: denis.bonnay@gmail.com
DAG WESTERSTÅHL
Affiliation:
STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITETSVÄGEN 10 D106 91 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY 30 SHUANGQING ROADHAIDIAN DISTRICT, BEIJING, CHINA E-mail: dag.westerstahl@philosophy.su.se

Abstract

We take Carnap’s problem to be to what extent standard consequence relations in various formal languages fix the meaning of their logical vocabulary, alone or together with additional constraints on the form of the semantics. This paper studies Carnap’s problem for basic modal logic. Setting the stage, we show that neighborhood semantics is the most general form of compositional possible worlds semantics, and proceed to ask which standard modal logics (if any) constrain the box operator to be interpreted as in relational Kripke semantics. Except when restricted to finite domains, no modal logic characterizes exactly the Kripkean interpretations of $\Box $ . Moreover, we show that, in contrast with the case of first-order logic, the obvious requirement of permutation invariance is not adequate in the modal case. After pointing out some known facts about modal logics that nevertheless force the Kripkean interpretation, we focus on another feature often taken to embody the gist of modal logic: locality. We show that invariance under point-generated subframes (properly defined) does single out the Kripkean interpretations, but only among topological interpretations, not in general. Finally, we define a notion of bisimulation invariance—another aspect of locality—that, together with a reasonable closure condition, gives the desired general result. Along the way, we propose a new perspective on normal neighborhood frames as filter frames, consisting of a set of worlds equipped with an accessibility relation, and a free filter at every world.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Association for Symbolic Logic, 2021

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

Bonnay, D., & Speitel, S. (2021). The ways of logicality: Invariance and categoricity. In Sagi, G. and Woods, J., editors. The Semantic Conception of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 4160.Google Scholar
Bonnay, D., & Westerståhl, D. (2016). Compositionality solves Carnap’s problem. Erkenntnis, 81(4), 721739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1943). Formalization of Logic. Studies in Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chellas, B. (1980). Modal Logic. An Introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Online publication 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Došen, K. (1989). Duality between modal algebras and neighbourhood frames. Studia Logica , 48(2), 219234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engström, F. (2014). Implicitly definable generalized quantifiers. In Kaså, M., editor. Idées Fixes: A Festschrift Dedicated to Christian Bennet on the Occasion of his 60 th Birthday . Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, pp. 6571.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2015). Which quantifiers are logical? A combined semantical and inferential criterion. In Zora, A., editor. Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers: Themes in Logic, Metaphysics, and Language. New York: Springer, pp. 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (1974). Metamathematics of Modal Logic. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, B., & Gärdenfors, P. (1973). A guide to intensional semantics. In Kanger, S., editor. Modality, Morality, and Other Problems of Sense and Nonsense; Essays Dedicated to Sören Halldén. Lund: CWK Gleerups Bokförlag, pp. 151167.Google Scholar
Holliday, W. H., & Litak, T. (2019) Complete additivity and modal incompleteness. Review of Symbolic Logic , 12(3), 487535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, B., & Tarski, A. (1951). Boolean algebras with operators. Part I. American Journal of Mathematics , 73(4), 891939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litak, T. (2018). On a problem of Westerståhl (manuscript).Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2000). What Does It Mean to Say That Logic Is Formal? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Makinson, D. (1971). Some embedding theorems for modal logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, XII, 252254.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1968). Pragmatics. In Klibansky, R., editor. Contemporary Philosophy: A Survey. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, pp. 102122. Reprinted as Chapter 3 in Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pacuit, E. (2017). Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1970). Advice on modal logic. In Lambert, K., editor. Philosophical Problems in Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 143173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, K. (1971). An Essay in Classical Modal Logic. Number 13 in Filosofiska Studier. Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Segerberg, K., (1980). A note on the logic of elsewhere. Theoria, 46, 183187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. K. (1975). Categories of frames for modal logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 40, 439442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (1989). Logical constants across varying types. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 30, 315342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., & Bezhanishvili, G. (2007). Modal logics of space. In Aiello, M., Pratt-Hartmann, I., and van Benthem, J., editors. Handbook of Spatial Logics, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 217298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., Bezhanishvili, N., Enqvist, S., & Ju, J. (2017). Instantial neighbourhood logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 10(1), 116144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Wright, G. H. (1979). A modal logic of place. In Sosa, E., editor. The Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 6573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, J. I. (1978). The adequacy problem for classical logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7, 517535.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

CARNAP’S PROBLEM FOR MODAL LOGIC
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

CARNAP’S PROBLEM FOR MODAL LOGIC
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

CARNAP’S PROBLEM FOR MODAL LOGIC
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *