There are two known general results on the finite model property of commutators [L0,L1]. If L is finitely axiomatizable by modal formulas having universal Horn first-order correspondents, then both [L,K] and [L,S5] are determined by classes of frames that admit filtration, and so they have the fmp. On the negative side, if both L0 and L1 are determined by transitive frames and have frames of arbitrarily large depth, then [L0,L1] does not have the fmp. In this paper we show that (...) commutators with a “weakly connected” component often lack the fmp. Our results imply that the above positive result does not generalize to universally axiomatizable component logics, and even commutators without “transitive” components such as [K3,K] can lack the fmp. We also generalize the above negative result to cases where one of the component logics has frames of depth one only, such as [S4.3,S5] and the decidable product logic S4.3×S5. We also show cases when already half of commutativity is enough to force infinite frames. (shrink)

Our concern is the axiomatisation problem for modal and algebraic logics that correspond to various fragments of two-variable first-order logic with counting quantifiers. In particular, we consider modal products with Diff, the propositional unimodal logic of the difference operator. We show that the two-dimensional product logic $Diff \times Diff$ is non-finitely axiomatisable, but can be axiomatised by infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. We also show that its ‘square’ version (the modal counterpart of the substitution and equality free fragment of two-variable first-order (...) logic with counting to two) is non-finitely axiomatisable over $Diff \times Diff$ , but can be axiomatised by adding infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. These are the first examples of products of finitely axiomatisable modal logics that are not finitely axiomatisable, but axiomatisable by explicit infinite sets of canonical axioms. (shrink)

Although a very recent topic in contemporary logic, the subject of combinations of logics has already shown its deep possibilities. Besides the pure philosophical interest offered by the possibility of defining mixed logic systems in which distinct operators obey logics of different nature, there are also several pragmatical and methodological reasons for considering combined logics. We survey methods for combining logics (integration of several logic systems into a homogeneous environment) as well as methods for decomposing logics, showing their interesting properties (...) and applications. (shrink)