Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:56:29.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The inadequacy of the neighbourhood semantics for modal logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Martin Gerson*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby V5A 1S6, British Columbia, Canada

Extract

We present two finitely axiomatized modal propositional logics, one between T and S4 and the other an extension of S4, which are incomplete with respect to the neighbourhood or Scott-Montague semantics.

Throughout this paper we are referring to logics which contain all the classical connectives and only one modal connective □ (unary), no propositional constants, all classical tautologies, and which are closed under the rules of modus ponens (MP), substitution, and the rule RE (from AB infer αA ↔ □B). Such logics are called classical by Segerberg [6]. Classical logics which contain the formula □p ∧ □q → □(pq) (denoted by K) and its “converse,” □{pq)→ □p ∧ □q (denoted by R) are called regular; regular logics which are closed under the rule of necessitation, RN (from A infer □A), are called normal. The logics that we are particularly concerned with are all normal, although some of our results will be true for all regular or all classical logics. It is well known that K and R and closure under RN imply closure under RE and also that normal logics are also those logics closed under RN and containing □{pq) → {□p → □q).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1975

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]Fine, Kit, An incomplete logic containing S4, Theoria, vol. 60 (1974), pp. 2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Gerson, Martin, A neighbourhood frame for T with no equivalent relational frame, Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, (to appear).Google Scholar
[3]Hansson, Bengt and Gärdenfors, Peter, A guide to intensional semantics, Working Paper No. 6, The Mattias Fremling Society, Kungshuset, Lundåjard S-223 50 Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
[4]Makinson, David, A generalization of the concept of a relational model for modal logic, Theoria, vol. 36 (1970), pp. 131135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]McKinsey, J. C. C. and Tarski, A., Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, this Journal, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 115.Google Scholar
[6]Segerberg, K., An essay in classical modal logic, Filosofiska studier utgivna av Filosofiska Föreningen och Filosofiska Institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet nr. 13, Uppsala, 1971.Google Scholar
[7]Thomason, S. K., Semantic analysis of tense logics, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 150158.Google Scholar
[8]Thomason, S. K., An incompleteness theorem in modal logic, Theoria, vol. 60 (1974), pp. 3034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar