Questions tagged [modal-logic]

a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
0
votes
1answer
16 views

Show S5 contains S4; Garson 2.4

<> = possible [ ]=necessary Hey all, I am trying to show the following axiom is provable in S5: [ ]A -> [ ] [ ]A = (4) The hint says to prove: [ ]A -> [ ] <> [ ]A first, which ...
-2
votes
0answers
23 views

Prove the following K schema (Exercise from Garson)

I want to prove <> (P v Q) => <> P v <> Q It was a biconditional, but I have proved the other one. Thanks for the answer. Please use Garson's method. Thanks. I am stuck on this, ...
-1
votes
0answers
29 views

Modal Logic Question: Proving a theorem in K [closed]

Garson's Modal Logic for Philosophers Exercise 1.8: [ ](P & Q) <=> [ ]P & [ ]Q I am stuck on this question, please help! Please use the method Garson uses. Thanks.
1
vote
1answer
42 views

Provided that we add an axiom □□(p=>p) to S1, how can we prove the rule of necessitation?

Since we don't have N, we can't use DR1, DR2, DR3 because they were all derived from N. In system K, K was an axiom, so we can't use K either without proving it first. Here are the axioms and ...
1
vote
1answer
64 views

Does the modal system S1 include the rule of necessiation?

I shall first post a couple of screenshots to make it clear what I'm talking about. I am reading A New Introduction to Modal Logic by Hughes and Cresswell. They answer the question in title very ...
-1
votes
2answers
108 views

Deductive reasoning & conditionals

What would be a good example of explicit deductive reasoning that doesn't seem to be possibly interpreted correctly as a conditional (If A, then B)?
0
votes
0answers
66 views

On which frames is the modal system KW valid?

KW is defined as K + the axiom W: □(□p→p)→□p. It is said to be valid on all finite transitive and irreflexive frames. Another way to interpret my question is, what exactly does finite mean here? Let's ...
2
votes
1answer
95 views

How to prove the completeness of S5?

I am reading New Introduction to Modal Logic by Hughes and Cresswell, and I don't quite understand the proof described on pages 105-108. I follow up to the point where they prove that for every of WFF ...
-1
votes
1answer
110 views

Hey all can you help prove the following from Garson's ML for Philosophers: [closed]

Exercise 1.7 (e) Modal Logic For Philosophers 2nd edition: []p v []q/[](p v q) {hint: set-up vout first} I would appreciate it if you can solve it using the methods laid out by Garson (PL+[]in+[]out)...
0
votes
1answer
41 views

Why is □p→◇p not a theorem of K? [closed]

¬(□p→◇p) □p ¬◇p □¬p □p ∧ □¬p As long as □ ranges over ANYTHING, □p ∧ □¬p is going to result in a contradiction.
0
votes
0answers
81 views

What is basically at stake in contemporary discussions regarding essentialism and essential properties?

Modern discussions of " essentialism" ( 17th century) can be associated with the empiricism / rationalsit debate. By denying that we have acces to " real essences" , Locke also denies that we can know ...
0
votes
0answers
23 views

modal quasi-conventionalism (Ted Sider)

So, I've been reading a bit on Ted Sider's modal quasi-conventionalism (elsewhere he calls his view modal Humeanism), and I was wondering if anyone had commented directly on it in the literature. I ...
0
votes
2answers
80 views

How does the proof of ◻(φ → ψ) → (◻φ → ◻ψ) not presuppose ◻φ → φ?

To be honest, I don't quite follow what happens after 5., and how they conclude 8. without ◻φ → φ. I'm guessing that because ¬◻ψ, they can do ◇¬ψ, so they pick a world where ¬ψ is true. And because ◻φ,...
1
vote
1answer
29 views

How does identity work in modal predicate logic?

Namely how can we can have a correspondence between objects in different possible worlds if they are different? If we have two worlds in S5 aw0(P(x)) = 1 and aw1(P(x)) = 0 How can we 'identify' x ...
2
votes
0answers
29 views

What is the distinction between A-intension and C-intension?

I'm having a really hard time understanding a concept discussed in “Qualia and Analytic Conditionals” by Braddon-Mitchell and "Why We Need A-Intensions" by Jackson. Here's my extraction of these ...
0
votes
0answers
59 views

Alphabetic Substitution, Barcan, and Strict Implication

Context: I'm stuck on Axiom 8 from the introduction to Barcan 1946, "A Functional Calculus of First Order Based on Strict Implication." My instinct is that I'm missing a basic, perhaps obvious concept-...
0
votes
0answers
70 views

Does S5 modal logic system Entails contradiction?

Almeida in his article A new cosmological argument undone writes: Assume for reductio ad absurdum that q is a contingently necessary proposition. (5∗) MLq & M∼Lq. Assumption But it follows ...
6
votes
2answers
2k views

What does □□p mean?

The premises of the S5 system are: □p → □□ p ◊p → □ ◊ p (Note that □ is an actual square, not the missing-symbol placeholder). What does the first one mean? If □p is what is necessary in all ...
0
votes
0answers
55 views

Is contingency necessary or possibly necessary have defined in S5?And is S5 entails contradiction?

Almeida in his article A new cosmological argument undone writes: Assume for reductio ad absurdum that q is a contingently necessary proposition. (5∗) MLq & M∼Lq. Assumption But it follows ...
0
votes
1answer
71 views

What does the “⊢” symbol mean in ⊢ p ⇔ (p & p)?

⊢ p ⇔ (p & p) what means the right part of these Entailments?
0
votes
1answer
117 views

what is meaning of accessibility of possible worlds?

I have a question about the notion of possibility in modal logic. There are systems and worlds with this notion. They say that a world w1 is accessible to an other world w2 if and only if for any true ...
2
votes
0answers
37 views

Did Quine change of opinion towards quantified modal logic?

Willard Van Orman Quine was a strong opponent to quantified modal logic calling it unreasonable and useless. But, did he always think like that? Or did he relax his attitude towards it with time? Did ...
1
vote
1answer
81 views

Having S5 system Why we need to use WPSR in Gale Pruss New cosmological arguement?

As you know Gale_ Pruss improved The cosmological argument using WPSR instead of Strong PSR. They in their 1999 article said if it be possibly that there be a God who freely created the world using ...
0
votes
0answers
40 views

Proving the Modal Logic S5-Theorem ♦□ϕ ↔ □ϕ

As above (http://gki.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/teaching/ss15/ml/script.pdf page 59), and in many other sources, the formula ♦□ϕ ↔ □ϕ is considered a theorem in modal logic S5. However, the paper ...
0
votes
1answer
26 views

Modal logic question about possibility (axiom?)

I'm not sure if PN(A) implies N(A) is an axiom or if it follows from the definition of P(possibility).
4
votes
2answers
144 views

Where is the fallacy in Seth Yalcin's counterexample to the modus tollens?

Where is the fallacy, do you think, in Seth Yalcin’s argument (2012) that the Modus Tollens is not a generally valid form of argument? Seth Yalcin’s counterexample to the Modus Tollens (MT) https://...
1
vote
5answers
236 views

Does it hold that everything exists necessarily?

In Quantified modal logic, "constancy’s defenders can point to certain powerful arguments in its favor. Here’s a quick sketch of one such argument. First, the following seems to be a logical truth: ...
1
vote
0answers
23 views

Does Kripke hold a view of free logic?

if Kripke doesn't want to accept Barcan's formula(the changed form in free logic) - given his essentialism - one solution is free logic. So does Kripke say that he accepts free logic or?
1
vote
0answers
116 views

Inference Rules of Modal Logic

I'm currently reading the book "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic." Currently, I'm being introduced to modal logic for the first time. This book seems to prefer to present the reader with the ...
3
votes
3answers
214 views

From Ignorant to Researcher in Modal Logic

I am a student in a French university in pure mathematics. I recently came across modal logic and more particularly doxastic logic. But, the only masters of logic offered are reserved for students of ...
1
vote
1answer
34 views

In Quine's ontology, why does a 'recognition' of something lead to ontological commitment while a 'feeling' does not?

We are discussing Quine's On What There Is in a metaphysics class I am in. I felt like I understood what he meant, that if something has to be predicated for in a sentence, we are ontologically ...
1
vote
0answers
112 views

Boethius, Logical Necessity, and Accidental Necessity: A Solution to Free Will and Foreknowledge?

In his classic book, the Consolation of Philosophy (Book V), Boethius attempts to make an argument that libertarian free will and [divine] foreknowledge are not incompatible. His argument goes ...
0
votes
1answer
355 views

Is God's existence either impossible or necessary?

This is meant as a supplement to a modal ontological argument to show that God's existence is either logically impossible or necessary. Am I committing a fallacy or a logical error of some kind or ...
0
votes
0answers
259 views

Did Robert Nozick's “Principle of Plenitude” propose the existence of universes based on different fundamental logics?

Philosopher Robert Nozick proposed the "Principle of Plenitude" (or of Fecundity), which proposes the existence of all possible worlds. I have a feeling that it is different from David Lewis' Modal ...
-2
votes
2answers
117 views

Modal Logic: One non-transitive frame where schema 4 is invalid?

I know that schema 4 defines the class of all transitive frames, meaning that it is not valid in at least one model that is non-transitive. However, I am not sure how we would go about proving that if ...
1
vote
1answer
61 views

Do possible worlds partition the set of all possible states of affairs?

Let S be the set of all ( logically) possible states of affairs ( I could have said " events" or " propositions" maybe). Let R be the relation : state of affairs x is compossible/ compatible with ...
0
votes
1answer
135 views

How to prove rigorously that “ necessarily ( A OR ~A) ” does not imply “ necessarily A OR necessarily ~A”?

In De Interpretatione , Aristotle criticizes logical fatalism ( a metaphysical doctrine professed in the Megarian School, in particular by Diodorus Cronus). Aristotle reconstructs the reasoning of ...
1
vote
0answers
82 views

Modal Logic: Proving Schema Validity

When faced with a question of the sort, "Is schema X valid in class of frames C?", we usually go about proving or disproving this by assuming the antecedent of X and showing that the consequent ...
1
vote
1answer
111 views

Trying to formalize a certain sentence in predicate modal logic

I have the following sentence which I want to formalize in predicate modal logic. The sentence is: What is good for you is not necessarily good for others" My attempt at formalizing this is as ...
2
votes
1answer
109 views

Modal logic: Why is K5 determined by the class of all Euclidean frames?

I am interested in proving that K, the smallest normal modal logic, in combination with the formula 5 (Possibly A then Necessarily Possibly A) is determined by the class of all Euclidean frames. For ...
0
votes
1answer
118 views

What kinds of proofs can be given for axioms, e.g. the modal axiom S5?

From John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter's book, titled, 'Science and Necessity', they assert the following: . . . . The resulting system, S5, contains all the theorems of S4 and all the theorems of ...
0
votes
1answer
87 views

Modal Logic: Why are Universal frames a subset of Equivalence frames?

I'm looking through the lecture notes for my course on modal logic and am having a hard time understanding why it is that U, the class of all Universal frames, is a subset of E, the class of all ...
2
votes
1answer
84 views

Modal Logic: Point-wise equivalence vs. (simple) equivalence

I am reading Brain Chellas' Modal Logic and have a question regarding point-wise and (simple) equivalence: what is a scenario in which two models are equivalent but not point-wise equivalent? Say, ...
0
votes
0answers
59 views

Is this valid in first-order modal logic?

(∀x)(∀y){(xEy) --> (∀z)[Tz --> (C(x,z)Ey)]} (Premise) {(∀y)[Ty --> (∃x)(Tx & xEy)]} --> {(∀y)[Ty --> (∃x)(Tx & xEy & ◻(Tx --> Ty))]} (From (1)) I'm trying to work this out in a quantified ...
1
vote
0answers
32 views

Did Carnap propose some kind of Modal Realism?

I have read in several pages that Rudolf Carnap, just as David Lewis (The creator of Modal Realism philosophical hypothesis) proposed that every logical proposition exists as a universe But is this ...
0
votes
1answer
42 views

David Lewis and naturalism

I am studying Lewis and I am wondering what are the cornerstones of his philosophical perspective. In particular, I am wondering if Lewis is a naturalist like his supervisor Quine.
0
votes
1answer
113 views

What are the various interpretations of modal logic?

Wikipedia lists the following interpretations of modal logic: Alethic: fundamental conditions of possible worlds, causality, time-space parameters, and the action capacity of persons. Indicates the ...
4
votes
1answer
68 views

What are good sources on vivid designators?

Wikipedia lists a vivid designator as the following: Vivid designator: In modal logic and the philosophy of language, a vivid designator is a term which is believed to designate the same ...
-1
votes
3answers
67 views

A question about possibility

If A, then B ~ A So, possible that B Valid or not? My take: Not valid. Reason: Valid means if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true That means adding new information should not ...
2
votes
1answer
196 views

What is the Barcan Formula?

can someone please help explain this Barcan formula to me? (In English translation and maybe with an example?) (◊ ∃x Fx) ↔ (∃x ◊ Fx) And if there is only one possible state of the world, would it ...

1
2 3 4 5 6