The veiled recession frame has served several times in the literature to provide examples of modal logics failing to have certain desirable properties. Makinson [4] was the first to use it in his presentation of a modal logic without the finite model property. Thomason [5] constructed a (rather complicated) logic whose Kripke frames have an accessibility relation which is reflexive and transitive, but which is satisfied by the (non-transitive) veiled recession frame, and hence incomplete. In Van Benthem [2] the frame (...) was an essential tool to find simple examples of incomplete logics, axiomatized by a formula in two proposition letters of degree 2, or by a formula in one proposition letter of degree 4 (the degree of a modal formula is the maximal number of nested occurrences of the necessity operator in ). In [3] we showed that the modal logic determined by the veiled recession frame is incomplete, and besides that, is an immediate predecessor of classical logic (or, more precisely, the modal logic axiomatized by the formula pp), and hence is a logic, maximal among the incomplete ones. Considering the importance of the modal logic determined by the veiled recession frame, it seems worthwhile to ask for an axiomatization, and in particular, to answer the question if it is finitely axiomatizable. In the present paper we find a finite axiomatization of the logic, and in fact, a rather simple one consisting of formulas in at most two proposition letters and of degree at most three. (shrink)

In the modal literature various notions of completeness have been studied for normal modal logics. Four of these are defined here, viz. (plain) completeness, first-order completeness, canonicity and possession of the finite model property — and their connections are studied. Up to one important exception, all possible inclusion relations are either proved or disproved. Hopefully, this helps to establish some order in the jungle of concepts concerning modal logics. In the course of the exposition, the interesting properties of first-order definability (...) and preservation under ultrafilter extensions are introduced and studied as well. (shrink)

It is shown that there is a Kripke incomplete logic in NExt(KTB ⊕ □2 p → □3 p). Furthermore, it is also shown that there exists a continuum of Kripke incomplete logics in NExt(KTB ⊕ □5 p → □6 p).

Gabbay has gathered an enormous amount of results; some of them important and novel, others important but already known, many rather routine, however. The organization of this material shows grave defects, both in the exposition and in its logical structure. Intensional logic appears as a vast collection of (often duplicated) loosely connected results. This may be a true reflection of the present state of the subject, but it does not contribute to a better understanding of it, let alone advance it.

In the modal literature various notions of "completeness" have been studied for normal modal logics. Four of these are defined here, viz. completeness, first-order completeness, canonicity and possession of the finite model property -- and their connections are studied. Up to one important exception, all possible inclusion relations are either proved or disproved. Hopefully, this helps to establish some order in the jungle of concepts concerning modal logics. In the course of the exposition, the interesting properties of first-order definability and (...) preservation under ultrafilter extensions are introduced and studied as well. (shrink)

We show that neither the descending chain property nor the finite model property is a necessary condition for a model logic having no minimal proper extension. This answers in the negative two questions raised by G. E. Hughes.

The purpose of the paper is to study syntactic refutation systems as a way of characterizing normal modal propositional logics. In particular it is shown that there is a decidable modal logic without the finite model property that has a simple finite refutation system.