Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

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

7
votes
2answers
248 views

Should truth entail possible truth?

It is a well-accepted axiom of modal logic that truth implies possible truth. Is there any philosophical argument against this conclusion? In other words, should truth entail possible truth?
3
votes
1answer
75 views
1
vote
3answers
143 views

Is anything not proven impossible therefore possible?

Is it a truism that, except for that which is proven impossible, everything is or must be considered possible? If so, why? It seems to me to be an argument from ignorance to say that just because we ...
2
votes
1answer
79 views

How to prove or disprove validity of ◻◻p → ◻p in the frame (Q,<) of the rational numbers with the usual less-than ordering?

I was wondering if someone can perhaps help with this proving. I am not sure how to handle a temporal frame that is not a set of only natural numbers. Any suggestions? Thank you.
2
votes
1answer
59 views

Is ◻((◻(P → ◻P)) ↔ (◻P v ◻~P)) derivable in S5?

Is ◻((◻(P → ◻P)) ↔ (◻P v ◻~P)) a theorem in S5? If so, is it also a theorem in B or just S5?
2
votes
2answers
122 views

Prove or disprove ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p in system K

How to start with the following proof? Any help would be appreciated. I have tried by assuming the left side is true, however, I get confused with the negation. ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p
4
votes
2answers
379 views

Does S4 (and B) hold for the strongest interpretations of ♢ and □?

Suppose these are the interpretations we are working with: ♢Ψ iff no explicit contradiction can be deduced from Ψ in FOL or in other words it's not provable that ~Ψ in FOL. ~♢Ψ iff an explicit ...
2
votes
1answer
38 views

Prove the rule that proves X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability in modal system K

I'm trying to solve a problem which asks me to show that the meta-rule defined by deriving X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability (i.e. if ⊢X(a) then ⊢X(P) in modal system K, where a is a sentence ...
3
votes
1answer
106 views

S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P)

I'm trying to construct an S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P). I know that ϕ∨ψ is equivalent to ~ϕ→ψ, and so what I'm really trying to derive is ~◻(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻P) (which is equivalent to ◊~(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻...
1
vote
1answer
63 views

Axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4

As the title explains, I'm trying to give an axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4. This is simple to prove in B, but I'm struggling to see how it's done in S4. I'd really appreciate any help you ...
1
vote
3answers
155 views

Modal validity & vagueness

(2nd version to make explicit my implicit assumptions about A, B and C, and the definitions of the non-logical constants "⊂" and "≡".) Intuitively, the following modal argument seems valid to me and ...
2
votes
2answers
148 views

Does ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx))) entail ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx)?

I was wondering if we can derive ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx) from ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx)))? (By the way 'E!' is the existence predicate.) I am using the Quantified Free Modal Logic constructed/...
4
votes
1answer
65 views

What is reflexivity in temporal logic?

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reflexivity can be defined by : ∀x(x ≺ x) Where ≺ means "Precedes" : For all x, x precedes x But what does it mean for an instant in time x ...
2
votes
1answer
81 views

Equivalence of strings of modal operators in modal logic

I'm trying to solve a question which asks me to show that for any two finite strings O₁ and O₂ of □s and ◊s, (e.g. □□◊□◊□), that i) if O₁≡O₂ then OO₁≡OO₂ and ii) if O₁≡O₂ then O₁O≡O₂O where O is ...
0
votes
3answers
97 views

Logical expression that non-existent things don't do anything?

How could we express the idea that "something that doesn't exist cannot possibly do anything" using a logical argument? And if so, it is at all possible to prove that kind of proposition?
0
votes
0answers
149 views

Semantic expressiveness of modal logic

I am wondering how much of the semantic of basic philosophical questions can be expressed by formal arguments in modal logic. Here is one argument I formalised myself: P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ ...
0
votes
2answers
124 views

Validity of a modal argument?

Would you say that the following argument is valid? And if not, why exactly? For all we know, A may be the state of B; What C does is determined by the state of B; Therefore, for all ...
2
votes
1answer
153 views

On that p does not imply necessarily p

Am I right to assume that in no modal logic, whether in K or in a logic where the accessibility relation is specified as either reflexive, symmetrical or transitive, does ”p implies necessarily p” ...
0
votes
1answer
101 views

How to prove or disprove “Necessarily P entails P” in Kripke Modal Logic?

I'm doing the body of exercises in Priest's Introduction to Non-classical logic, and got weirdly stuck on 2.12 (o). (I'm on Problems 2.12, if anyone has a link to the answers that would also be much ...
4
votes
1answer
201 views

Is the problem of logical omniscience intractable?

Vincent Hendricks and John Symons notes the following about epistemic logic: Epistemic logic gets its start with the recognition that expressions like ‘knows that’ or ‘believes that’ have ...
1
vote
1answer
77 views

Going from ◊(∃x)◻Fx and ◻(∀x)(Fx --> E!x) to ◊(∃x)◻(Fx & E!x)

Is it a valid inference (in, say, any quantified modal logic S5 system) to go from ◊(∃x)◻Fx and ◻(∀x)(Fx --> E!x) to ◊(∃x)◻(Fx & E!x)? (E!x is the existence predicate, by the way.)
2
votes
3answers
171 views

How do pragmatists avoid this modal argument against their view of truth?

I am reading Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic (Routledge, 2002) and doing exercise 1 of 7.3b in the "Basic Modal Logic" chapter. I think I follow the steps. The answer is in the book. My ...
3
votes
0answers
89 views

Propositions that can't be used to distinguish possible worlds

Are there known ways of formalizing the notion of propositions that can't be targeted by counterfactuals in a coherent way? Or of propositions that are outside the scope of the framework in question? ...
3
votes
1answer
42 views

Logic and resolving a modus tollens

Wasserman presents a common argument against time travel: (P1) If backward time travel were possible, it would be possible to perform a self-defeating act. (P2) It is impossible to perform a self-...
2
votes
1answer
46 views

Justification for axiom OB-RE in deontic logic

Let OB p denote "p is obligatory". Axiom OB-RE is (p ↔ q) → (OB p ↔ OB q). This axiom seems false to me (under the interpretation of obligation). For example, let p denote "don't lie to me" and q ...
1
vote
1answer
131 views

If I cannot draw a world in a truth tree in modal logic does that mean that no other worlds exist for that statement?

Suppose I have a truth tree for a modal logic statement that is closed or is open but for which I cannot continue drawing worlds, does that mean that there are no other accessible worlds in that modal ...
1
vote
1answer
261 views

What is the counterexample in modal system K for “⬜A ➡A”?

As I understand it from Modal Logic 2.1 - the systems M, B, S4 & S5, I should not be able to show "⬜A ➡A" in modal logic K. The following truth tree seems to confirm this, if I did it correctly: ...
1
vote
1answer
203 views

Why can one not draw a world in modal logic given necessity?

In Modal Logic 1.2 -- truth trees for K about 1:30 into the video, the presenter said: If you have possibly A then you need to draw an arrow to a new world and derive A in that world because w0 ...
3
votes
2answers
127 views

What is the justification for closing a whole branch in a modal truth tree diagram if there is a contradiction in only one world?

I am watching "Modal logic 1.2 - truth trees for system K" presented through Kane B's channel. The standard propositional truth tree diagrams are not a problem. Where I am having trouble is opening ...
1
vote
1answer
63 views

Establishing validity of ◊(∃x)◻[(E!x ⊃ Ox) & E!x]/ ∴ (∃x)◻[(E!x ⊃ Ox) & E!x]

I was wondering under which sort of quantified modal logic S5 system would the inference from ◊(∃x)◻[(E!x ⊃ Ox) & E!x] to (∃x)◻[(E!x ⊃ Ox) & E!x] be valid. Would this require a constant domain ...
5
votes
1answer
359 views

Can possible-but-non-actual objects have accidental properties?

The modal logic I am considering is the "Simplest Quantified Modal Logic" which combines first-order predicate logic with identity, with S5 in the most straightforward way, described here and slightly ...
2
votes
1answer
48 views

How to translate classical logic to basic Kripkean logic?

I'm trying to semantically prove the following argument (sorry about the formatting - I'm new to stackexchange): if P ⊨c Q then ⊨k 򪪪(P → Q) However, I don't know how to translate or relate the ...
2
votes
4answers
124 views

How to denote physical (not logical) impossibility in modal logic?

Say I want to note that in this world, it's physically impossible to jump over the Eiffel Tower. I can just write ¬◇x, but this seems to say that in all possible worlds x is impossible, and I want to ...
0
votes
2answers
152 views

Why does modal logic need to use ◻◻p?

In Frederic Fitch's Symbolic Logic he proves (11.8, page 66) that "◻p" coimplicates "◻◻p". In 11.10 (page 66), he writes, A system almost the same as the system Lewis calls S2 is obtainable by ...
6
votes
1answer
232 views

Does anyone have a proof checker they prefer using for modal logic?

I am looking for a proof checker for modal logic using natural deduction or sequent calculus. I am trying to learn Isabelle, but I think there should be a simpler solution. Although I can rely on ...
2
votes
2answers
89 views

What's the difference between logical modalities and physical modalities?

I am just wondering what's the difference between the two. I would say that there is something different, but honestly I can't define what it is exactly. What do you think?
5
votes
1answer
122 views

What is Quine's perspective on probability?

I am curious about what Quine's perspective on probability may be and if we can say that the quinean viewpoint on modality can be considered similar to his viewpoint on probability. Is probability ...
1
vote
1answer
44 views

Verum or T in dynamic epistemic logic models

I've been reading a paper on dynamic epistemic logic where they use T in a way that I'm not really familar with. The paper is here by Wesley Holliday, page 16: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dae6/...
2
votes
1answer
251 views

What logic does Fitch's paradox use?

So I have been looking into Modal Logic as well as epistemic logic (and its dynamic versions) with the hopes of studying their applications to Fitch's paradox. Fitches paradox refers to the proof ...
1
vote
1answer
62 views

Need help formally translating sentence into modal logic

Can someone please help me formally translate the sentence "it is impossible for x to exist without y existing as well" into modal logic using ~◇? Or, similarly, the sentence "it is impossible for ...
2
votes
1answer
186 views

Axioms for modal logics based upon counterfactuals

Suppose we have a logic for counterfactuals as with David Lewis. I here use ⇛ for the counterfactual conditional. So suppose we have: Rules: (1) If A and A→B are theorems, then B is a theorem. (2)...
5
votes
2answers
173 views

How does the concept of the 'virtual' (Deleuze) relate to 'counterfactuals' (Lewis)?

We read: "[...] Deleuze will reject the notion of the possible in favor of that of the virtual. Rather than awaiting realization, the virtual is fully real; what happens in genesis is that the ...
1
vote
0answers
39 views

Does Sosa's modal definition of knowledge beg the question?

In his 1999 paper "How to Defeat Opposition to Moore", Ernest Sosa argues that sceptical, Nozickian tracking, relevant-alternative, and contextualist accounts of the sceptical paradox rely on the ...
4
votes
1answer
148 views

How to construct a counter-model of □P --> □◊P in T and K?

I am new to modal logics and would really appreciate it if someone would be able to help me out with this practice question. I’ve established the validity theorem in T with an axiomatic proof, but I ...
2
votes
1answer
64 views

“Fatalism and Professor Taylor” by Bruce Aune

In this paper Bruce Aune states the following Taylor would probably want to maintain that (p ≺ q) ⊃ — (p → q), where "→" represents physical, or natural, implication So I'm not clear what "...
2
votes
1answer
149 views

Negation of a E quantifier in a Modal Logic T System?

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->◊~...
4
votes
2answers
82 views

How many equivalence classes does the accessiblity relation have in S5?

I'm a math student taking philosophy classes. So I have some math background but am absolutely unfamiliar with metaphysics&c. Recently I've come around the "Nothing Is Impossible" paper as a part ...
3
votes
1answer
375 views

Natural deduction introduction and elimination rules for modal quantifiers

I've read several papers on modal natural deduction but I've only been able to find one clear explanation of []-Introduction ([]A if A can be proved from no assumptions/premises). But there were no ...
2
votes
3answers
151 views

In possible-world semantics, what do nested modal quantifiers mean?

I'm trying to learn modal logic and I'm having trouble translating sentences like [][]A and []<>A into natural language using possible-world semantics. The first statement seems to read, "In ...
4
votes
2answers
119 views

circularity of possibility defined over possible worlds

I have just checked similar questions that have been asked(and answered) before but I am still confused. How is it that the notion of possibility defined over as being True in some possible world not ...