Review of Joseph Y. Halpern (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1986 Conference (Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1986),.

The paper studies first order extensions of classical systems of modal logic (see (Chellas, 1980, part III)). We focus on the role of the Barcan formulas. It is shown that these formulas correspond to fundamental properties of neighborhood frames. The results have interesting applications in epistemic logic. In particular we suggest that the proposed models can be used in order to study monadic operators of probability (Kyburg, 1990) and likelihood (Halpern-Rabin, 1987).

The paper presents a semantics for quantified modal logic which has a weaker axiomatization than the usual Kripke semantics. In particular, the Barcan Formula and its converse are not valid with the proposed semantics. Subclasses of models which validate BF and other interesting formulas are presented. A completeness theorem is proved, and the relation between this result and completeness with respect to Kripke models is investigated.

A general method for generating contraction- and cut-free sequent calculi for a large family of normal modal logics is presented. The method covers all modal logics characterized by Kripke frames determined by universal or geometric properties and it can be extended to treat also Gödel-Löb provability logic. The calculi provide direct decision methods through terminating proof search. Syntactic proofs of modal undefinability results are obtained in the form of conservativity theorems.

This paper offers a semantic study in multi-relational semantics of quantified N-Monotonic modal logics with varying domains with and without the identity symbol. We identify conditions on frames to characterise Barcan and Ghilardi schemata and present some related completeness results. The characterisation of Barcan schemata in multi-relational frames with varying domains shows the independence of BF and CBF from well-known propositional modal schemata, an independence that does not hold with constant domains. This fact was firstly suggested for classical modal systems (...) by Stolpe, 557–575, 2003), but unfortunately that work used only models and not frames. (shrink)

That every first-order theory has a coherent conservative extension is regarded by some as obvious, even trivial, and by others as not at all obvious, but instead remarkable and valuable; the result is in any case neither sufficiently well-known nor easily found in the literature. Various approaches to the result are presented and discussed in detail, including one inspired by a problem in the proof theory of intermediate logics that led us to the proof of the present paper. It can (...) be seen as a modification of Skolem’s argument from 1920 for his “Normal Form” theorem. “Geometric” being the infinitary version of “coherent”, it is further shown that every infinitary first-order theory, suitably restricted, has a geometric conservative extension, hence the title. The results are applied to simplify methods used in reasoning in and about modal and intermediate logics. We include also a new algorithm to generate special coherent implications from an axiom, designed to preserve the structure of formulae with relatively little use of normal forms. (shrink)

This paper develops sequent calculi for several classical modal logics. Utilizing a polymodal translation of the standard modal language, we are able to establish a base system for the minimal classical modal logic E from which we generate extensions in a modular manner. Our systems admit contraction and cut admissibility, and allow a systematic proof-search procedure of formal derivations.

Although first-order Kripke semantics has become a well established branch of modal logic, very little - almost nothing - is written about logics with a weaker modal fragment. We try to help the situation by isolating principles determining the interaction between quantifiers and modalities in minimal semantics. First, we let the standard-model properties of monotonic and anti-monotonic domains clue us in on how to do this – i. e. we try to articulate, in terms of the inclusiveness of the domains (...) of a certain set of worlds, a set of semantical restrictions that will validate the Barcan and converse Barcan formulae respectively. As it turns out, this can indeed by done, but only by adding assumptions strong enough to make the models virtually normal. Since the whole point of switching to a minimal framework would be to generalise the logic, we therefore abandon the worlds-objects thinking altogether, and switch to a much simpler and more direct validation strategy in which the propositions we are after are simply picked out as such. (shrink)