Imperatives are linguistic devices used by an authority (speaker) to express wishes, requests, commands, orders, instructions, and suggestions to a subject (addressee). This essay's goal is to tentatively address some of the following questions about the imperative. -/- METASEMANTIC. What is the menu of options for understanding fundamental semantic notions like satisfaction, truth-conditions, validity, and entailment in the context of imperatives? Are there good imperative arguments, and, if so, how are they to be characterized? What are the options for understanding (...) the property that an account of good imperative arguments is supposed to track? What constraints on a semantic analysis of the imperative do different positions on the metasemantic issues impose? -/- SEMANTIC. How might we implement metasemantic postures in a rigorous formal system? How much can we do using familiar tools from deontic modal logic? How much leverage over semantic questions can we gain by introducing tools from natural language semantics—ordering sources, dyadic modal operators, salient alternatives, and the like—into a formal semantics for an imperative object language? How much leverage can we gain by introducing tools from rather less-utilized areas of modal logic—devices for representing actions and planning in time, modal operators constructed from action-terms, and the like—into the analysis? -/- DYNAMIC. How do imperatives succeed in performing the speech acts they are used to perform? How do imperatives update discourses? How can we leverage an account of imperative discourse update in giving a dynamic semantics for the imperative? Is there anything about the imperative that demands a dynamic semantic treatment? (shrink)

Propositional dynamic logic is complete but not compact. As a consequence, strong completeness requires an infinitary proof system. In this paper, we present a short proof for strong completeness of $$\mathsf{PDL}$$ relative to an infinitary proof system containing the rule from [α; β n ]φ for all $$n \in {\mathbb{N}}$$, conclude $$[\alpha;\beta^*] \varphi$$. The proof uses a universal canonical model, and it is generalized to other modal logics with infinitary proof rules, such as epistemic knowledge with common knowledge. Also, we (...) show that the universal canonical model of $$\mathsf{PDL}$$ lacks the property of modal harmony, the analogue of the Truth lemma for modal operators. (shrink)

In this paper we study substantive assumptions in social interaction. By substantive assumptions we mean contingent assumptions about what the players know and believe about each other’s choices and information. We first explain why substantive assumptions are fundamental for the analysis of games and, more generally, social interaction. Then we show that they can be compared formally, and that there exist contexts where no substantive assumptions are being made. Finally we show that the questions raised in this paper are related (...) to a number of issues concerning “large” structures in epistemic game theory. (shrink)

Predicate modal logics based on Kwith non-compact extra axioms are discussed and a sufficient condition for the model existence theorem is presented. We deal with various axioms in a general way by an algebraic method, instead of discussing concrete non-compact axioms one by one.

Ever since [4], systems of spheres have been considered to give an intuitive and elegant way to give a semantics for logics of theory- or belief- change. Several authors [5, 11] have considered giving up the rather strong assumption that systems of spheres be linearly ordered by inclusion. These more general structures are called hypertheories after [8]. It is shown that none of the proposed logics induced by these weaker structures are compact and thus cannot be given a strongly complete (...) axiomatization in a finitary logic. Complete infinitary axiomatizations are given for several intuitive logics based on hypertheories that are not linearly ordered by inclusion. (shrink)

Dynamic topological logic is a multi-modal logic that was introduced for reasoning about dynamic topological systems, i.e. structures of the form $\langle{\mathfrak{X}, f}\rangle $, where $\mathfrak{X}$ is a topological space and $f$ is a continuous function on it. The problem of finding a complete and natural axiomatization for this logic in the original tri-modal language has been open for more than one decade. In this paper, we give a natural axiomatization of $\textsf{DTL}$ and prove its strong completeness with respect to (...) the class of all dynamic topological systems. Our proof system is infinitary in the sense that it contains an infinitary derivation rule with countably many premises and one conclusion. It should be remarked that $\textsf{DTL}$ is semantically non-compact, so no finitary proof system for this logic could be strongly complete. Moreover, we provide an infinitary axiomatic system for the logic ${\textsf{DTL}}_{\mathcal{A}}$, i.e. the $\textsf{DTL}$ of Alexandrov spaces, and show that it is strongly complete with respect to the class of all dynamical systems based on Alexandrov spaces. (shrink)

Aim of this work is to investigate from a proof-theoretic viewpoint a propositional and a predicate sequent calculus with an ω–type schema of inference that naturally interpret the propositional and the predicate until–free fragments of Linear Time Logic LTL respectively. The two calculi are based on a natural extension of ordinary sequents and of standard modal rules. We examine the pure propositional case (no extralogical axioms), the propositional and the first order predicate cases (both with a possibly infinite set of (...) extralogical axioms). For each system we provide a syntactic proof of cut elimination and a proof of completeness. (shrink)

One of the important extensions of PDL is PDL with intersection of programs. We devote this paper to its complete axiomatization.

This paper provides a logic framework for investigations of game theoretical problems. We adopt an infinitary extension of classical predicate logic as the base logic of the framework. The reason for an infinitary extension is to express the common knowledge concept explicitly. Depending upon the choice of axioms on the knowledge operators, there is a hierarchy of logics. The limit case is an infinitary predicate extension of modal propositional logic KD4, and is of special interest in applications. In Part I, (...) we develop the basic framework, and show some applications: an epistemic axiomatization of Nash equilibrium and formal undecidability on the playability of a game. To show the formal undecidability, we use a term existence theorem, which will be proved in Part II. (shrink)