In this paper we provide a simplified, possibilistic semantics for the logics K45, i.e. a many-valued counterpart of the classical modal logic K45 over the [0, 1]-valued Gödel fuzzy logic \. More precisely, we characterize K45 as the set of valid formulae of the class of possibilistic Gödel frames \, where W is a non-empty set of worlds and \ is a possibility distribution on W. We provide decidability results as well. Moreover, we show that all the results also apply (...) to the extension of K45 with the axiom, provided that we restrict ourselves to normalised Gödel Kripke frames, i.e. frames \ where \ satisfies the normalisation condition \ = 1\). (shrink)

Pietruszczak (Bull Sect Log 38(3/4):163–171, 2009) proved that the normal logics K45 , KB4 (=KB5), KD45 are determined by suitable classes of simplified Kripke frames of the form ⟨W,A⟩ , where A⊆W. In this paper, we extend this result. Firstly, we show that a modal logic is determined by a class composed of simplified frames if and only if it is a normal extension of K45. Furthermore, a modal logic is a normal extension of K45 (resp. KD45; KB4; S5) if (...) and only if it is determined by a set consisting of finite simplified frames (resp. such frames with A≠∅; such frames with A=W or A=∅; such frames with A=W). Secondly, for all normal extensions of K45, KB4, KD45 and S5, in particular for extensions obtained by adding the so-called “verum” axiom, Segerberg’s formulas and/or their T-versions, we prove certain versions of Nagle’s Fact (J Symbol Log 46(2):319–328, 1981) (which concerned normal extensions of K5). Thirdly, we show that these extensions are determined by certain classes of finite simplified frames generated by finite subsets of the set N of natural numbers. In the case of extensions with Segerberg’s formulas and/or their T-versions these classes are generated by certain finite subsets of N. (shrink)

Possibilistic logic and modal logic are knowledge representation frameworks sharing some common features, such as the duality between possibility and necessity, and the decomposability of necessity for conjunctions, as well as some obvious differences since possibility theory is graded. At the semantic level, possibilistic logic relies on possibility distributions and modal logic on accessibility relations. In the last 30 years, there have been a series of attempts for bridging the two frameworks in one way or another. In this paper, we (...) compare the relational semantics of epistemic logics with simpler possibilistic semantics of a fragment of such logics that only uses modal formulas of depth 1. This minimal epistemic logic handles both all-or-nothing beliefs and explicitly ignored facts. We also contrast epistemic logic with the S5-based rough set logic. Finally, this paper presents extensions of generalized possibilistic logic with objective and non-nested multimodal formulas, in the style of modal logics KD45 and S5. (shrink)