In this paper I shall present some of the results I have obtained on modal theories which contain quantifiers for propositions. The paper is in two parts: in the first part I consider theories whose non-quantificational part is S5; in the second part I consider theories whose non-quantificational part is weaker than or not contained in S5. Unless otherwise stated, each theory has the same language L. This consists of a countable set V of propositional variables pl, pa, ... , (...) the operators v (or), ~ (not) and □ (necessarily), the universal quantifier (p), p a propositional variable, and brackets ( and ). The formulas of L are then defined in the usual way. (shrink)

This paper obtains the weak completeness and decidability results for standard systems of modal logic using models built from formulas themselves. This line of work began with Fine (Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 16:229-237, 1975). There are two ways in which our work advances on that paper: First, the definition of our models is mainly based on the relation Kozen and Parikh used in their proof of the completeness of PDL, see (Theor. Comp. Sci. 113-118, 1981). The point is to (...) develop a general model-construction method based on this definition. We do this and thereby obtain the completeness of most of the standard modal systems, and in addition apply the method to some other systems of interest. None of the results use filtration, but in our final section we explore the connection. (shrink)

The tangle modality is a propositional connective that extends basic modal logic to a language that is expressively equivalent over certain classes of finite frames to the bisimulation-invariant fragments of both first-order and monadic second-order logic. This paper axiomatises several logics with tangle, including some that have the universal modality, and shows that they have the finite model property for Kripke frame semantics. The logics are specified by a variety of conditions on their validating frames, including local and global connectedness (...) properties. Some of the results have been used to obtain completeness theorems for interpretations of tangled modal logics in topological spaces. (shrink)

In the pioneering article and two papers, written jointly with McKinsey, Tarski developed the so-called algebraic and topological frameworks for the Intuitionistic Logic and the Lewis modal system. In this paper, we present an outline of modern systems with a topological tinge. We consider topological interpretation of basic systems GL and G of the provability logic in terms of the Cantor derivative and the Hausdorff residue.

Our investigation is concerned with the finite model property with respect to admissible rules. We establish general sufficient conditions for absence of fmp w. r. t. admissibility which are applicable to modal logics containing K4: Theorem 3.1 says that no logic λ containing K4 with the co-cover property and of width > 2 has fmp w. r. t. admissibility. Surprisingly many, if not to say all, important modal logics of width > 2 are within the scope of this theorem–K4 itself, (...) S4, GL, K4.1, K4.2, S4.1, S4.2, GL.2, etc. Thus the situation is completely opposite to the case of the ordinary fmp–the absolute majority of important logics have fmp, but not with respect to admissibility. As regards logics of width ≤ 2, there exists a zone for fmp w. r. t. admissibility. It is shown that all modal logics A of width ≤ 2 extending S4 which are not sub-logics of three special tabular logics have fmp w.r.t. admissibility. (shrink)

This paper concerns modal logics appearing from the temporal ordering of domains in two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. As R. Goldblatt has proved recently, the logic of the whole plane isS4.2. We consider closed or open convex polygons and closed or open domains bounded by simple differentiable curves; this leads to the logics:S4,S4.1,S4.2 orS4.1.2.

The first part of the paper is a reminder of fundamental results connected with the adequacy problem for sentential logics with respect to matrix semantics. One of the main notions associated with the problem, namely that of the degree of complexity of a sentential logic, is elucidated by a couple of examples in the second part of the paper. E.g., it is shown that the minimal logic of Johansson and some of its extensions have degree of complexity 2. This is (...) the first example of an exact estimation of the degree of natural complex logics, i.e. logics whose deducibility relation cannot be represented by a single matrix. The remaining examples of complex logics are more artificial, having been constructed for the purpose of checking some theoretical possibilities. (shrink)

The Diodorean interpretation of modality reads the operator as it is now and always will be the case that. In this paper time is modelled by the four-dimensional Minkowskian geometry that forms the basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity, with event y coming after event x just in case a signal can be sent from x to y at a speed at most that of the speed of light (so that y is in the causal future of x).It is (...) shown that the modal sentences valid in this structure are precisely the theorems of the well-known logic S4.2, and that this system axiomatises the logics of two and three dimensional spacetimes as well. (shrink)

It is shown that a formula of modal propositional logic has precisely the same models as a sentence of the first-order language of a single dyadic predicate iff its class of models is closed under ultraproducts. as a corollary, any modal formula definable by a set of first-order conditions is always definable by a single such condition. these results are then used to show that the formula (lmp 'validates' mlp) is not first-order definable.

LetSKP be the intermediate prepositional logic obtained by adding toI (intuitionistic p.l.) the axiom schemes:S = (( ) ) (Scott), andKP = ()()() (Kreisel-Putnam). Using Kripke's semantics, we prove:1) SKP has the finite model property; 2) SKP has the disjunction property. In the last section of the paper we give some results about Scott's logic S = I+S.