Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T11:28:10.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REALIZABILITY SEMANTICS FOR QUANTIFIED MODAL LOGIC: GENERALIZING FLAGG’S 1985 CONSTRUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2016

BENJAMIN G. RIN  and
SEAN WALSH
BENJAMIN G. RIN*
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation at the University of Amsterdam
SEAN WALSH*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
*
*FACULTEIT DER NATUURWETENSCHAPPEN, WISKUNDE EN INFORMATICA INSTITUTE FOR LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND COMPUTATION UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM P.O. BOX 94242 1090 GE AMSTERDAM E-mail: benjamin.rin@gmail.com
†DEPARTMENT OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 5100 SOCIAL SCIENCE PLAZA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE IRVINE, CA 92697-5100, U.S.A. E-mail: swalsh108@gmail.com or walsh108@uci.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A semantics for quantified modal logic is presented that is based on Kleene’s notion of realizability. This semantics generalizes Flagg’s 1985 construction of a model of a modal version of Church’s Thesis and first-order arithmetic. While the bulk of the paper is devoted to developing the details of the semantics, to illustrate the scope of this approach, we show that the construction produces (i) a model of a modal version of Church’s Thesis and a variant of a modal set theory due to Goodman and Scedrov, (ii) a model of a modal version of Troelstra’s generalized continuity principle together with a fragment of second-order arithmetic, and (iii) a model based on Scott’s graph model (for the untyped lambda calculus) which witnesses the failure of the stability of nonidentity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 752 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barendregt, H. P. (1981). The Lambda Calculus. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 103. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Beeson, M. J. (1985). Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Vol. 6. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. L. (1985). Boolean-Valued Models and Independence Proofs in Set Theory (second edition). Oxford Logic Guides, Vol. 12. New York: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Corsi, G. (2002). A unified completeness theorem for quantified modal logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 67(4), 1483–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitting, M., & Mendelsohn, R. L. (1998). First-Order Modal Logic. Synthese Library, Vol. 277. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Flagg, R. C. (1985). Church’s thesis is consistent with epistemic arithmetic. In Shapiro, S., editor, Intensional Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 113. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 121–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. D. (1985). A genuinely intensional set theory. In Shapiro, S., editor, Intensional Mathematics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 113. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 63–79.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. D. (1986). Flagg realizability in arithmetic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(2), 387–392.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. D. (1990). Topological models of epistemic set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 46(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, P., & Pudlák, P. (1998). Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Halbach, V., & Horsten, L. (2000). Two proof-theoretic remarks on EA + ECT. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 46(4), 461–466.Google Scholar
Horsten, L. (1997). Provability in principle and controversial constructive principles. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26(6), 635–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsten, L. (1998). In defense of epistemic arithmetic. Synthese, 116, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsten, L. (2006). Formalizing Church’s thesis. In Olszewski, A., Woleński, J., & Janusz, R., editors, Church’s Thesis After 70 Years. Frankfurt: Ontos, pp. 253–267.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kechris, A. S. (1995). Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 156. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1943). Recursive predicates and quantifiers. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 53, 41–73.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1945). On the interpretation of intuitionistic number theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 10, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. A. (2001). Multiple universes of sets and indeterminate truth values. Topoi, 20(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
McCarty, D. C. (1984). Realizability and Recursive Mathematics. Technical Report CMU-CS-84-131. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University. Reprint of author’s PhD Thesis, Oxford University 1983.Google Scholar
McCarty, D. C. (1986). Realizability and recursive set theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 32(2), 153–183.Google Scholar
Odifreddi, P. (1999). Classical Recursion Theory, Vol. II. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 143. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rathjen, M. (2006). Realizability for constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In Logic Colloquium ’03. Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 24. La Jolla: Association for Symbolic Logic, pp. 282–314.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, W. N. (1985). The consistency of a variant of Church’s thesis with an axiomatic theory of an epistemic notion. In Caicedo, X., N. C. A. d. C., & Chuaqui, R., editors, Proceedings of the Fifth Latin American Symposium on Mathematical Logic, Vol. 19. Bogotá: Sociedad Colombiana de Matemáticas, pp. 177–200.Google Scholar
Rogers, H Jr.. (1987). Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability (second edtion). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scedrov, A. (1986). Some properties of epistemic set theory with collection. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(3), 748–754.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1975). Lambda calculus and recursion theory. In Proceedings of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 82. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 154–193.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1985a). Epistemic and intuitionistic arithmetic. In Intensional Mathematics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 113. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1985b). Intensional Mathematics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 113. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1993). Understanding Church’s thesis, again. Acta Analytica, 11, 59–77.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. S. (1977). Aspects of constructive mathematics. In Barwise, J., editor, Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 90. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 973–1052.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. S. (1998). Realizability. In Buss, S. R., editor, Handbook of Proof Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 137. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 407–474.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. S., & Schwichtenberg, H. (2000). Basic Proof Theory (second edition). Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. S., & van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Two volumes.Google Scholar
van Oosten, J. (2002). Realizability: A historical essay. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 12(3), 239–263.Google Scholar
van Oosten, J. (2008). Realizability: An Introduction to its Categorical Side. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 152. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar