Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T07:31:51.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Canonical modal logics and ultrafilter extensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Extract

In this paper the canonical modal logics, a kind of complete modal logics introduced in K. Fine [4] and R. I. Goldblatt [5], will be characterized semantically using the concept of an ultrafilter extension, an operation on frames inspired by the algebraic theory of modal logic. Theorem 8 of R. I. Goldblatt and S. K. Thomason [6] characterizing the modally definable Σ⊿-elementary classes of frames will follow as a corollary. A second corollary is Theorem 2 of [4] which states that any complete modal logic defining a Σ⊿-elementary class of frames is canonical.

The main tool in obtaining these results is the duality between modal algebras and general frames developed in R. I. Goldblatt [5]. The relevant notions and results from this theory will be stated in §2. The concept of a canonical modal logic is introduced and motivated in §3, which also contains the above-mentioned theorems. In §4, a kind of appendix to the preceding discussion, preservation of first-order sentences under ultrafilter extensions (and some other relevant operations on frames) is discussed.

The modal language to be considered here has an infinite supply of proposition letters (p, q, r, …), a propositional constant ⊥ (the so-called falsum, standing for a fixed contradiction), the usual Boolean operators ¬ (not), ∨ (or), ∨ (and), → (if … then …), and ↔ (if and only if)—with ¬ and ∨ regarded as primitives—and the two unary modal operators ◇ (possibly) and □ (necessarily)— ◇ being regarded as primitive. Modal formulas will be denoted by lower case Greek letters, sets of formulas by Greek capitals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]van Benthem, J. F. A. K., Modal correspondence theory, Dissertation, Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
[2]van Benthem, J. F. A. K., Modal formulas are either elementary or not Σ⊿-elementary, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 436438.Google Scholar
[3]Fine, K., An incomplete logic containing S4, Theoria, vol. 40 (1974), pp. 2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Fine, K., Some connections between elementary and modal logic, Proceedings of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium, Uppsala 1973, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975, pp. 1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Goldblatt, R. I., Metamathematics of modal logic, Reports on Mathematical Lotic, vol. 6 (1976), pp. 4177 and vol. 7 (1976), pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
[6]Goldblatt, R. I. and Thomason, S. K., Axiomatic classes in propositional modal logic, Algebra and Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 450, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1975, pp. 163173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Segerberg, K., An essay in classical modal logic, Filosofiska Studier, Uppsala, Sweden, 1971.Google Scholar
[8]Thomason, S. K., An incompleteness theorem in modal logic, Theoria, vol. 40 (1974), pp. 3034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar