Propositional quantifiers are added to a propositional modal language with two modal operators. The resulting language is interpreted over so-called products of Kripke frames whose accessibility relations are equivalence relations, letting propositional quantifiers range over the powerset of the set of worlds of the frame. It is first shown that full second-order logic can be recursively embedded in the resulting logic, which entails that the two logics are recursively isomorphic. The embedding is then extended to all sublogics containing the logic (...) of so-called fusions of frames with equivalence relations. This generalizes a result due to Antonelli and Thomason, who construct such an embedding for the logic of such fusions. (shrink)

Dialogical logic is a game-theoretical approach to logic. Logic is studied with the help of certain games, which can be thought of as idealized argumentations. Two players, the Proponent, who puts forward the initial thesis and tries to defend it, and the Opponent, who tries to attack the Proponent’s thesis, alternately utter argumentative moves according to certain rules. For a long time the dialogical approach had been worked out only for classical and intuitionistic logic. The seven papers of this dissertation (...) show that this narrowness was uncalled for. The initial paper presents an overview and serves as an introduction to the other papers. Those papers are related by one central theme. As each of them presents dialogical formulations of a different non-classical logic, they show that dialogical logic constitutes a powerful and flexible general framework for the development and study of various logical formalisms and combinations thereof. As such it is especially attractive to logical pluralists that reject the idea of “the single correct logic”. The collection contains treatments of free logic, modal logic, relevance logic, connexive logic, linear logic, and multi-valued logic. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the hybrid formalism fits naturally in the context of David Lewis’s counterfactual logic and that its introduction into this framework is desirable. This hybridization enables us to regard the inference “The pig is Mary; Mary is pregnant; therefore the pig is pregnant” as a process of updating local information (which depends on the given situation) by using global information (independent of the situation). Our hybridization also has the following technical advantages: (i) (...) it preserves the completeness and decidability of Lewis’s logic; (ii) it allows us to characterize the Limit Assumption as a proof-rule with some side-conditions; and (iii) it enables us to establish a general Kripke completeness result by using the proof-rule corresponding to the Limit Assumption. Keywords Counterfactual logic - David Lewis - Contextually definite description - Hybrid logic - Arthur Prior - The limit assumption - Strong completeness - Decidability - Bisimulation - Pure completeness. (shrink)

This paper presents a logic of preference and functional dependence (LPFD) and its hybrid extension (HLPFD), both of whose sound and strongly complete axiomatization are provided. The decidability of LPFD is also proved. The application of LPFD and HLPFD to modelling cooperative games in strategic form is explored. The resulted framework provides a unified view on Nash equilibrium, Pareto optimality and the core. The philosophical relevance of these game-theoretical notions to discussions of collective agency is made explicit. Some key connections (...) with other logics are also revealed, for example, the coalition logic, the logic of functional dependence and the logic of ceteris paribus preference. (shrink)

We provide a complete axiomatization of modal inclusion logic—team-based modal logic extended with inclusion atoms. We review and refine an expressive completeness and normal form theorem for the logic, define a natural deduction proof system, and use the normal form to prove completeness of the axiomatization. Complete axiomatizations are also provided for two other extensions of modal logic with the same expressive power as modal inclusion logic: one augmented with a might operator and the other with a single-world variant of (...) the might operator. (shrink)

This book explores the interplay between logic and science, describing new trends, new issues and potential research developments.

Reformulation strategies for solving Fitch’s paradox of knowability date back to Edgington. Their core assumption is that the formula \, from which the paradox originates, does not correctly express the intended meaning of the verification thesis, which should concern possible knowledge of actual truths, and therefore the contradiction does not represent a logical refutation of verificationism. Supporters of these solutions claim that can be reformulated in a way that blocks the derivation of the paradox. Unfortunately, these reformulation proposals come with (...) other problems, on both the logical and the philosophical side. We claim that in order to make the reformulation idea consistent and adequate one should analyze the paradox from the point of view of a quantified modal language. An approach in this line was proposed by, among others, Kvanvig but was not fully developed in its technical details. Here we approach the paradox by means of a first order hybrid modal logic, a tool that strikes us as more adequate to express transworld reference and the rigidification needed to consistently express this idea. The outcome of our analysis is ambivalent. Given a first order formula we are able to express the fact that it is knowable in a way which is both consistent and adequate. However, one must give up the possibility of formulating as a substitution free schema of the kind \. We propose that one may instead formulate by means of a recursive translation of the initial formula, being aware that many alternative translations are possible. (shrink)

With the idea of analyzing awareness as potential for knowledge, we propose a novel semantics for awareness logic. Expressivities of languages with different combinations of modalities for this semantics are investigated. We explore the properties of our semantics and compare our model with Fagin & Halpern model and the model by Heifetz et al. in partitional settings. A series of equivalence results are established from the comparison. Finally, we provide two axiomatizations for implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge, respectively, and prove (...) soundness and completeness for them. (shrink)

In classical modal semantics, a binary accessibility relation connects worlds. In this paper, we present a uniform and systematic treatment of modal semantics with a continuous accessibility relation alongside the continuous accessibility modal logics that they model. We develop several such logics for a variety of philosophical applications. Our main conclusions are as follows. Modal logics with a continuous accessibility relation are sound and complete in their natural classes of models. The class of Kripke frames where a continuous accessibility relation (...) has a magnitude characterizing its degree of accessibility is not modally definable, and this has unappreciated significance to completeness proofs for such logics, revealing a methodological advantage of using classical multimodal semantics over fuzzy modal semantics. There is a pseudometric space modal logic that is complete in the class of pseudometric spaces, a natural semantic setting for quantitative modal reasoning about similarity. There is a metric space modal logic that is complete in the class of metric spaces, a natural semantic setting for quantitative modal reasoning about neighborhoods and counterfactual stability. There is a real line continuous temporal logic that is canonical for real lines, a natural semantic setting for quantitative modal reasoning about time. (shrink)

We study a generalization of the standard syntax and game-theoretic semantics of logic, which is based on a duality between two players, to a multiplayer setting. We define propositional and modal languages of multiplayer formulas, and provide them with a semantics involving a multiplayer game. Our focus is on the notion of equivalence between two formulas, which is defined by saying that two formulas are equivalent if under each valuation, the set of players with a winning strategy is the same (...) in the two respective associated games. We provide a derivation system which enumerates the pairs of equivalent formulas, both in the propositional case and in the modal case. Our approach is algebraic: We introduce multiplayer algebras as the analogue of Boolean algebras, and show, as the corresponding analog to Stone’s theorem, that these abstract multiplayer algebras can be represented as concrete ones which capture the game-theoretic semantics. For the modal case we prove a similar result. We also address the computational complexity of the problem whether two given multiplayer formulas are equivalent. In the propositional case, we show that this problem is co-NP-complete, whereas in the modal case, it is PSPACE-hard. (shrink)

History based models suggest a process-based approach to epistemic and temporal reasoning. In this work, we introduce preferences to history based models. Motivated by game theoretical observations, we discuss how preferences can dynamically be updated in history based models. Following, we consider arrow update logic and event calculus, and give history based models for these logics. This allows us to relate dynamic logics of history based models to a broader framework.

In dialogical logic, the proof process is conceived in terms of argumentative games in which a proponent of a thesis and an opponent interact. Different levels of rules allow to define different logical contexts of argumentation. This provides to dialogical logic a genuine pluralistic dimension. In this paper, we introduce the rules of a new modal dialogical approach referred to as “Adaptive Structure Seeking Dialogues” (A-SSD). A-SSD have their roots in Structure Seeking Dialogues (SSD), on the one hand, and in (...) adaptive logics, on the other hand. SSD are dialogues in which assumptions concerning the underlying modal frame can be introduced during the argumentative game. These are structural assumptions. A-SSD are based on a distinction of dialogical moves, between unconditional moves and conditional moves. Unconditional moves are performed without structural assumptions, whereas conditional moves are subject to the defence of further conditions imposed by these structural assumptions. These assumptions will be expressed in a hybrid modal language. This distinction yields the dialogical understanding of the adaptive logic inspired notions of lower limit dialogical logic and upper limit dialogical logic. Conditional moves always suppose a jump to a more permissive upper limit dialogical logic. It is interesting to note that we can think of A-SSD as some kind of diagrammatic-based reasoning, in relation to lattices representing the map of the different modal logics. (shrink)

We introduce game-theoretic semantics for systems without the conveniences of either a De Morgan negation, or of distribution of conjunction over disjunction and conversely. Much of game playing rests on challenges issued by one player to the other to satisfy, or refute, a sentence, while forcing him/her to move to some other place in the game’s chessboard-like configuration. Correctness of the game-theoretic semantics is proven for both a training game, corresponding to Positive Lattice Logic and for more advanced games for (...) the logics of lattices with weak negation and modal operators. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to propose a unified formal account of dialogical cognitive processes so that it allows the analysis of similarities and differences between those processes. Formal dialogue systems constitute two basic categories or paradigms of modelling communication depending on what cognitive process is described by a given system. The first paradigm consists of designing a set of dialogue rules in a similar manner to Lorenzen’s dialogue logic, and according to which players jointly aim to prove the (...) validity of a formula. In such cases we will say that the system describes formal dialogues and the formal cognitive process of proving the validity of a formula. The second paradigm focuses on building a system similar to Hamblin’s formal dialectics, which “simulates” the real-life communication practice. In the type of dialogues described by those systems, players perform “good” argumentation, i.e. argumentation which fulfils certain requirements of rationality such as e.g. the requirement of not committing a fallacy of circular reasoning. In such a case we will be speaking of a natural dialogue and a natural cognitive process of argumentation. (shrink)