The transition semantics presented in Rumberg (J Log Lang Inf 25(1):77–108, 2016a) constitutes a fine-grained framework for modeling the interrelation of modality and time in branching time structures. In that framework, sentences of the transition language L_t are evaluated on transition structures at pairs consisting of a moment and a set of transitions. In this paper, we provide a class of first-order definable Kripke structures that preserves L_t-validity w.r.t. transition structures. As a consequence, for a certain fragment of L_t, validity (...) w.r.t. transition structures turns out to be axiomatizable. The result is then extended to the entire language L_t by means of a quite natural ‘Henkin move’, i.e. by relaxing the notion of validity to bundled structures. (shrink)

We discuss a `negative' way of defining frame classes in (multi)modal logic, and address the question of whether these classes can be axiomatized by derivation rules, the `non-ξ rules', styled after Gabbay's Irreflexivity Rule. The main result of this paper is a metatheorem on completeness, of the following kind: If Λ is a derivation system having a set of axioms that are special Sahlqvist formulas and Λ+ is the extension of Λ with a set of non-ξ rules, then Λ+ is (...) strongly sound and complete with respect to the class of frames determined by the axioms and the rules. (shrink)

In Ockhamist branching-time logic [Prior 67], formulas are meant to be evaluated on a specified branch, or history, passing through the moment at hand. The linguistic counterpart of the manifoldness of future is a possibility operator which is read as `at some branch, or history (passing through the moment at hand)'. Both the bundled-trees semantics [Burgess 79] and the $\langle moment, history\rangle$ semantics [Thomason 84] for the possibility operator involve a quantification over sets of moments. The Ockhamist frames are (3-modal) (...) Kripke structures in which this second-order quantification is represented by a first-order quantification. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the notions of modal definability, validity, and axiomatizability concerning 3-modal frames which can be viewed as generalizations of Ockhamist frames. (shrink)

In this paper we present BTC, which is a complete logic for branchingtime whose modal operator quantifies over histories and whose temporal operators involve a restricted quantification over histories in a given possible choice. This is a technical novelty, since the operators of the usual logics for branching-time such as CTL express an unrestricted quantification over histories and moments. The value of the apparatus we introduce is connected to those logics of agency that are interpreted on branching-time, as for instance (...) Stit Logics. (shrink)

Trees with indistinguishability relations provide a semantics for a temporal language “composed by” the Peircean tense operators and the Ockhamist modal operator. In this paper, a finite axiomatization with a non standard rule for this language interpreted over bundled trees with indistinguishability relations is given. This axiomatization is proved to be sound and strongly complete.

1 Choice conjecture In axiomatizing nonclassical extensions of classical sentential logic one tries to make do, if one can, with adding to classical sentential logic a finite number of axiom schemes of the simplest kind and a finite number of inference rules of the simplest kind. The simplest kind of axiom scheme in effect states of a particular formula P that for any substitution of formulas for atoms the result of its application to P is to count as an axiom. (...) The simplest kind of onepremise inference rule in effect states of a particular pair of formulas P and Q that for any substitution of formulas for atoms, if the result of its application to P is a theorem, then the result of its application to Q is to count as a theorem; similarly for many-premise rules. Such are the schemes and rules of all the best-known modal and tense logics, for instance. Sometimes it is difficult to find such simple schemes and rules. In that case one may resort to less simple schemes or less simple rules. There is no generally recognized rigorous definition of "next simplest kind" of scheme. Neither is there any generally recognized definition of "next simplest kind" of rule, and hence there is no fully rigorous enunciation of the choice conjecture, the conjecture that schemes of the next simplest kind can always be avoided in favor of rules of the next simplest kind and vice versa. Nonetheless, there are cases where intuitively one does recognize that the schemes or rules in a given axiomatization are only slightly more complex than the simplest kind, including cases where one does have a choice between adopting slightly-more-complex-than-simplest schemes and adopting slightly-more-complex-than-simplest rules. In tense logic early examples of slightly more complex rules are found in [2] and [3] : there is one example of the embarrassed use of such rules in the former, and many examples of the enthusiastic use of such rules in the latter and its sequels. Accordingly the rules in question have come to be called "Gabbay-style" rules. (shrink)