Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

RESTRICTED INTERPOLATION AND LACK THEREOF IN STIT LOGIC

  • GRIGORY K. OLKHOVIKOV (a1)

Abstract

We consider the propositional logic equipped with Chellas stit operators for a finite set of individual agents plus the historical necessity modality. We settle the question of whether such a logic enjoys restricted interpolation property, which requires the existence of an interpolant only in cases where the consequence contains no Chellas stit operators occurring in the premise. We show that if action operators count as logical symbols, then such a logic has restricted interpolation property iff the number of agents does not exceed three. On the other hand, if action operators are considered to be nonlogical symbols, then the restricted interpolation fails for any number of agents exceeding one. It follows that unrestricted Craig interpolation also fails for almost all versions of stit logic.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY I RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM GA 3/156 UNIVERSITÄTSSTR. 150 D-44780 BOCHUM, GERMANY E-mail: grigory.olkhovikov@rub.de, grigory.olkhovikov@gmail.com

References

Hide All
[1]Balbiani, P., Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2008). Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative stit theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37 (4), 387406.
[2]Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World. New York: Oxford University Press.
[3]Broersen, J. (2011). Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic, 9(2), 137152.
[4]Chang, C. & Keisler, H. (2012). Model Theory. Mineola, NY: Dover.
[5]Chellas, B. F. (1969). The Logical Form of Imperatives. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.
[6]Gabbay, D. & Maksimova, L. (2005). Interpolation and Definability: Modal and Intuitionistic Logics. Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[7]Herzig, A. & Schwarzentruber, F. (2008). Properties of logics of individual and group agency. In Areces, C., and Goldblatt, R., editors. Proceedings of Advances in Modal Logic. London: College Publications, pp. 133149.
[8]Horty, J. (2001). Agency and Deontic Logic. USA: Oxford University Press.
[9]Horty, J. F. & Belnap, N. (1995). The deliberative stit: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6), 583644.
[10]Lorini, E. (2013). Temporal logic and its application to normative reasoning. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 23(4), 372399.
[11]Olkhovikov, G. & Wansing, H. (2017). Inference as doxastic agency. Part ii: Ramifications and refinements. Australasian Journal of Logic, 14(4), 408438.
[12]Olkhovikov, G. & Wansing, H. (2018). Inference as doxastic agency. Part i: The basics of justification stit logic. Studia Logica, 107, 167194. Online first: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-017-9779z.
[13]van Benthem, J. (1997). Modal foundations for predicate logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 5(2), 259286.
[14]von Kutschera, F. (1986). Bewirken. Erkenntnis, 24(3), 253281.

Keywords

RESTRICTED INTERPOLATION AND LACK THEREOF IN STIT LOGIC

  • GRIGORY K. OLKHOVIKOV (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.