2

In System T its possible to conclude:

(1) □Ex->Ex

Therefore its possible to conclude:

(2) Ex->◊Ex

But whats the result, if I negate the existence quantifier? Is it:

(3) ~Ex->~◊Ex

or is it:

(4) ~Ex->◊~Ex

I found nothing in the usual introduction textbooks, but Im not a (modal) logic expert. Im thankful for all your answers

Improve this question
6
  • Not clear; you are trying to derive the negated formula from what ?
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Jan 7, 2018 at 13:43
  • You have to negate formulas, and not quantifiers.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Jan 7, 2018 at 13:44
  • My question is: If nothing existists (~Ex), is it inpossible (~◊) that something existists (Ex)? That is what I was going for with (3). And can i show (3) in the T system?
    – Mr_Lampe
    Commented Jan 7, 2018 at 13:49
  • 1
    Obviously, (4) follows from (2).
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Jan 7, 2018 at 13:56
  • From (1), by contrapostion, we get: ~∃x → ~□∃x i.e. ~∃x → ◊~∃x.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Jan 7, 2018 at 13:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

As @MauroALLEGRANZA mentions, you do get

(4) ~Ex->◊~Ex

I'd say it just follows from System T in general:

System T makes the accessibility relation reflexive, so that if there is no x with a certain property P in a world w, then there is a possible world relative to w, namely w itself, where there is no x with property P.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .