We extend the languages of both basic and graded modal logic with the infinity diamond, a modality that expresses the existence of infinitely many successors having a certain property. In both cases we define a natural notion of bisimilarity for the resulting formalisms, that we dub $\mathtt {ML}^{\infty }$ and $\mathtt {GML}^{\infty }$, respectively. We then characterise these logics as the bisimulation-invariant fragments of the naturally corresponding predicate logic, viz., the extension of first-order logic with the infinity quantifier. Furthermore, for both $\mathtt {ML}^{\infty }$ and $\mathtt {GML}^{\infty }$ we provide a sound and complete axiomatisation for the set of formulas that are valid in every Kripke frame, we prove a small model property with respect to a widened class of weighted models, and we establish decidability of the satisfiability problem.

The way Leibniz applied his philosophy to mathematics has been the subject of longstanding debates. A key piece of evidence is his letter to Masson on bodies. We offer an interpretation of this often misunderstood text, dealing with the status of infinite divisibility in nature, rather than in mathematics. In line with this distinction, we offer a reading of the fictionality of infinitesimals. The letter has been claimed to support a reading of infinitesimals according to which they are logical fictions, contradictory in their definition, and thus absolutely impossible. The advocates of such a reading have lumped infinitesimals with infinite wholes, which are rejected by Leibniz as contradicting the part–whole principle. Far from supporting this reading, the letter is arguably consistent with the view that infinitesimals, as inassignable quantities, are mentis fictiones, i.e., (well-founded) fictions usable in mathematics, but possibly contrary to the Leibnizian principle of the harmony of things and not necessarily idealizing anything in rerum natura. Unlike infinite wholes, infinitesimals—as well as imaginary roots and other well-founded fictions—may involve accidental (as opposed to absolute) impossibilities, in accordance with the Leibnizian theories of knowledge and modality.

In providing a good foundation for mathematics, set theorists often aim to develop the strongest theories possible and avoid those theories that place undue restrictions on the capacity to possess strength. For example, adding a measurable cardinal to $ZFC$ is thought to give a stronger theory than adding $V=L$ and the latter is thought to be more restrictive than the former. The two main proponents of this style of account are Penelope Maddy and John Steel. In this paper, I’ll offer a third account that is intended to provide a simple analysis of restrictiveness based on the algebraic concept of retraction in the category of theories. I will also deliver some results and arguments that suggest some plausible alternative approaches to analyzing restrictiveness do not live up to their intuitive motivation.

Many tasks in statistical and causal inference can be construed as problems of entailment in a suitable formal language. We ask whether those problems are more difficult, from a computational perspective, for causal probabilistic languages than for pure probabilistic (or “associational”) languages. Despite several senses in which causal reasoning is indeed more complex—both expressively and inferentially—we show that causal entailment (or satisfiability) problems can be systematically and robustly reduced to purely probabilistic problems. Thus there is no jump in computational complexity. Along the way we answer several open problems concerning the complexity of well-known probability logics, in particular demonstrating the ${\exists \mathbb {R}}$-completeness of a polynomial probability calculus, as well as a seemingly much simpler system, the logic of comparative conditional probability.

Scoring rules measure the deviation between a forecast, which assigns degrees of confidence to various events, and reality. Strictly proper scoring rules have the property that for any forecast, the mathematical expectation of the score of a forecast p by the lights of p is strictly better than the mathematical expectation of any other forecast q by the lights of p. Forecasts need not satisfy the axioms of the probability calculus, but Predd et al. [9] have shown that given a finite sample space and any strictly proper additive and continuous scoring rule, the score for any forecast that does not satisfy the axioms of probability is strictly dominated by the score for some probabilistically consistent forecast. Recently, this result has been extended to non-additive continuous scoring rules. In this paper, a condition weaker than continuity is given that suffices for the result, and the condition is proved to be optimal.

In topological modal logic, it is well known that the Cantor derivative is more expressive than the topological closure, and the ‘elsewhere’, or ‘difference’, operator is more expressive than the ‘somewhere’ operator. In 2014, Kudinov and Shehtman asked whether the combination of closure and elsewhere becomes strictly more expressive when adding the Cantor derivative. In this paper we give an affirmative answer: in fact, the Cantor derivative alone can define properties of topological spaces not expressible with closure and elsewhere. To prove this, we develop a novel theory of morphisms which preserve formulas with the elsewhere operator.

This paper puts forth a class of algebraic structures, relativized Boolean algebras (RBAs), that provide semantics for propositional logic in which truth/validity is only defined relative to a local domain. In particular, the join of an event and its complement need not be the top element. Nonetheless, behavior is locally governed by the laws of propositional logic. By further endowing these structures with operators—akin to the theory of modal Algebras—RBAs serve as models of modal logics in which truth is relative. In particular, modal RBAs provide semantics for various well-known awareness logics and an alternative view of possibility semantics.

We systematically study several versions of the disjunction and the existence properties in modal arithmetic. First, we newly introduce three classes $\mathrm {B}$, $\Delta (\mathrm {B})$, and $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$ of formulas of modal arithmetic and study basic properties of them. Then, we prove several implications between the properties. In particular, among other things, we prove that for any consistent recursively enumerable extension T of $\mathbf {PA}(\mathbf {K})$ with $T \nvdash \Box \bot $, the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-disjunction property, the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-existence property, and the $\mathrm {B}$-existence property are pairwise equivalent. Moreover, we introduce the notion of the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-soundness of theories and prove that for any consistent recursively enumerable extension of $\mathbf {PA}(\mathbf {K4})$, the modal disjunction property is equivalent to the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-soundness.

We prove a strengthened version of Shavrukov’s result on the non-isomorphism of diagonalizable algebras of two $\Sigma _1$-sound theories, based on the improvements previously found by Adamsson. We then obtain several corollaries to the strengthened result by applying it to various pairs of theories and obtain new non-isomorphism examples. In particular, we show that there are no surjective homomorphisms from the algebra $(\mathfrak {L}_T, \Box _T\Box _T)$ onto the algebra $(\mathfrak {L}_T, \Box _T)$. The case of bimodal diagonalizable algebras is also considered. We give several examples of pairs of theories with isomorphic diagonalizable algebras but non-isomorphic bimodal diagonalizable algebras.

Hyperlogic is a hyperintensional system designed to regiment metalogical claims (e.g., “Intuitionistic logic is correct” or “The law of excluded middle holds”) into the object language, including within embedded environments such as attitude reports and counterfactuals. This paper is the first of a two-part series exploring the logic of hyperlogic. This part presents a minimal logic of hyperlogic and proves its completeness. It consists of two interdefined axiomatic systems: one for classical consequence (truth preservation under a classical interpretation of the connectives) and one for “universal” consequence (truth preservation under any interpretation). The sequel to this paper explores stronger logics that are sound and complete over various restricted classes of models as well as languages with hyperintensional operators.

We explain and explore class-theoretic potentialism—the view that one can always individuate more classes over a set-theoretic universe. We examine some motivations for class-theoretic potentialism, before proving some results concerning the relevant potentialist systems (in particular exhibiting failures of the $\mathsf {.2}$ and $\mathsf {.3}$ axioms). We then discuss the significance of these results for the different kinds of class-theoretic potentialists.