Given a class \ of models, a binary relation \ between models, and a model-theoretic language L, we consider the modal logic and the modal algebra of the theory of \ in L where the modal operator is interpreted via \. We discuss how modal theories of \ and \ depend on the model-theoretic language, their Kripke completeness, and expressibility of the modality inside L. We calculate such theories for the submodel and the quotient relations. We prove a downward Löwenheim–Skolem (...) theorem for first-order language expanded with the modal operator for the extension relation between models. (shrink)

Viewing the language of modal logic as a language for describing directed graphs, a natural type of directed graph to study modally is one where the nodes are sets and the edge relation is the subset or superset relation. A well-known example from the literature on intuitionistic logic is the class of Medvedev frames $\langle W,R\rangle$ where $W$ is the set of nonempty subsets of some nonempty finite set $S$, and $xRy$ iff $x\supseteq y$, or more liberally, where $\langle W,R\rangle$ (...) is isomorphic as a directed graph to $\langle \wp(S)\setminus\{\emptyset\},\supseteq\rangle$. Prucnal [32] proved that the modal logic of Medvedev frames is not finitely axiomatizable. Here we continue the study of Medvedev frames with extended modal languages. Our results concern definability. We show that the class of Medvedev frames is definable by a formula in the language of tense logic, i.e., with a converse modality for quantifying over supersets in Medvedev frames, extended with any one of the following standard devices: nominals (for naming nodes), a difference modality (for quantifying over those $y$ such that $x\not= y$), or a complement modality (for quantifying over those $y$ such that $x\not\supseteq y$). It follows that either the logic of Medvedev frames in one of these tense languages is finitely axiomatizable---which would answer the open question of whether Medvedev's [31] "logic of finite problems'' is decidable---or else the minimal logics in these languages extended with our defining formulas are the beginnings of infinite sequences of frame-incomplete logics. (shrink)

We continue the investigations initiated in the recent papers where Bayes logics have been introduced to study the general laws of Bayesian belief revision. In Bayesian belief revision a Bayesian agent revises his prior belief by conditionalizing the prior on some evidence using the Bayes rule. In this paper we take the more general Jeffrey formula as a conditioning device and study the corresponding modal logics that we call Jeffrey logics, focusing mainly on the countable case. The containment relations among (...) these modal logics are determined and it is shown that the logic of Bayes and Jeffrey updating are very close. It is shown that the modal logic of belief revision determined by probabilities on a finite or countably infinite set of elementary propositions is not finitely axiomatizable. The significance of this result is that it clearly indicates that axiomatic approaches to belief revision might be severely limited. (shrink)

In the article [2] a hierarchy of modal logics has been defined to capture the logical features of Bayesian belief revision. Elements in that hierarchy were distinguished by the cardinality of the set of elementary propositions. By linking the modal logics in the hierarchy to the modal logics of Medvedev frames it has been shown that the modal logic of Bayesian belief revision determined by probabilities on a finite set of elementary propositions is not finitely axiomatizable. However, the infinite case (...) remained open. In this article we prove that the modal logic of Bayesian belief revision determined by standard Borel spaces is also not finitely axiomatizable. (shrink)

In Bayesian belief revision a Bayesian agent revises his prior belief by conditionalizing the prior on some evidence using Bayes’ rule. We define a hierarchy of modal logics that capture the logical features of Bayesian belief revision. Elements in the hierarchy are distinguished by the cardinality of the set of elementary propositions on which the agent’s prior is defined. Inclusions among the modal logics in the hierarchy are determined. By linking the modal logics in the hierarchy to the strongest modal (...) companion of Medvedev’s logic of finite problems it is shown that the modal logic of belief revision determined by probabilities on a finite set of elementary propositions is not finitely axiomatizable. (shrink)