J. C. C. McKinsey and Alfred Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 1-- 15.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....are specified in essentially the same way as the classical connectives. They also seem to be more natural from the point of view of spatial interpretations. Algebraic semantics is actually the oldest formal interpretation for modal logics: an algebraic interpretation of S4 was given by Tarski [24]; but, since Kripke s results [12] relational semantics has been given far more attention. The relationship between algebraic semantics and Kripke models was first studied by Lemmon [14, 15] who introduced the term modal algebra (however, a theory of Boolean algebras with additional ....

....spatial constraints. In this section I explain how the modal logic S4 can be used as a spatial representation in which the modal operator corresponds directly to the interior function. The topological interpretation of S4 is not new (it can be directly inferred from the results presented in [24] and [22] however, as far as I know it has not actually been used as a basis for spatial reasoning. It has long been known (see [7] that formulae of the intuitionistic propositional calculus can be translated into modal formulae in such a way that an intuitionistic formula is a theorem if and ....

A. Tarski and J.C.C. McKinsey. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1--15, 1948.

.... # to each subformula of A (cf. Orlov [Orl28] Godel [God33] Using this translation every intermediate propositional logic, a logic between intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) and classical propositional logic, is embedded into a modal logic between S4 and S5 (cf. McKinsey and Tarski [MT48], Dummett and Lemmon [DL59] Zakharyaschev [Zak91] For example, it was shown that for any non modal 1.1. A propositional logic having the formal provability interpretation 3 IPL i# #(A) S4. So, it is natural to conjecture that the propositional logic L satisfying for any non modal formula ....

J. C. C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13, 1948, pp. 1--15.

....Algebraic Polymodal Logic: A Survey versions [26, 28, 27, 45, 46] and their connections with rst order logic and set theory. The logical tradition has emphasised the use of unary operators in the study of modal and temporal logics, with highlights including the early work of McKinsey and Tarski [40, 44] on Lewis modal systems and intuitionistic logic; the pioneering use of algebra by Bull [8] in proving that all normal extensions of the modal logic S4.3 have the nite model property and in obtaining the rst axiomatisations of the temporal logics of discrete and continuous time [9] Thomason s ....

J. C. C. Mckinsey and A. Tarski. Some Theorems about the Sentential Calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1-15, 1948.

....Algebraic Polymodal Logic: A Survey versions [26, 28, 27, 45, 46] and their connections with rst order logic and set theory. The logical tradition has emphasised the use of unary operators in the study of modal and temporal logics, with highlights including the early work of McKinsey and Tarski [40, 44] on Lewis modal systems and intuitionistic logic; the pioneering use of algebra by Bull [8] in proving that all normal extensions of the modal logic S4.3 have the nite model property and in obtaining the rst axiomatisations of the temporal logics of discrete and continuous time [9] Thomason s ....

J. C. C. Mckinsey and A. Tarski. Some Theorems about the Sentential Calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1-15, 1948.

....characterizes the notion of justi cation of pragmatics sentences, as inductively de ned relations between illocutionary acts. ii) Suppose the language of L P is extended as in Example (ii) above, but with the axioms of the modal system S4. Then one could follow G odel [9] McKinsey and Tarski [11] and interpret 2 as there is a proof that is true ; thus we obtain the following modal translation of the assertive fragment of L P into its radical 3 We thank Giovanni Sambin for suggesting this example. A PRAGMATIC INTERPRETATION OF SUBSTRUCTURAL LOGICS 19 part thus extended: ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, Journal of Symbolic Logic 13, 1948, pp. 1-15. 34 GIANLUIGI BELLIN AND CARLO DALLA POZZA

....[7] all the further studies focused, in fact, on the connection between Moore s notion of groundedness in autoepistemic logic and suitable variations on the modal representation of default logic. The breakthrough in the modal study of default logic came from Marek, Shwartz and Truszczy nski in [19, 10, 24, 11, 12, 9, 20] who reconsider the earliest attempt of McDermott and Doyle and of McDermott. In fact, in McDermott and Doyle s fix point equation it is sufficient to strengthen classical logic with the necessitation rule, that is the logic N , which however has been done by McDermott who devised the needs of ....

....to the family of logics , with KD KD4LZ, by just considering a modal language with a finite number of propositional variables. The fact that we have found a family of logics not compatible with reflexivity that characterizes Reiter extensions solves also the attempt made by Truszczy nski in [24] of introducing a boxed version of I . Truszczy nski, in fact, introduces the following translation for a default: 2ff 23fi 2fl whose meaning is if ff is provable and the consistency of fi is provable then fl is provable . This translation, however, collapses to 2ff23fi fl ( if ff is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Tarski and J.C.C. McKinsey. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1--15, 1948.

....part of Theorem 1.1. 4 Two Embeddings There are well known embeddings of classical first order logic into first order versions of S5 and S4. They can be described easily: for S5, insert in front of every subformula; for S4, insert in front of every subformula. The S5 translation comes from [8] and [9] the S4 version comes from [2] where its connection with forcing was noted. In [10] the S4 translation was a key step in the proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of Zermelo Fraenkel set theory. Now two variations of these translations are introduced, ....

J. C. C. McKinsey and A. Tarski. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1--15, 1948.

....the classical modal language: box each subformula of F . G odel established that Int F ) S4 t(F) providing an exact reading of Int formulas as statements about provability in classical mathematics. He conjectured that the inverse ( also holds. This conjecture was eventually established in [16]. In one of his lectures [6] in 1938 ( rst published in 1995, see also [17] G odel sketched an explicit version of S4 4 with the basic proposition t is a proof of F . Although this sketch does not contain exact de nitions, it shows the way to explain the re exivity principle for provability ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, Journal of Symbolic Logic, v. 13, pp. 1-15, 1948.

....to the one from [57] box each subformula of F . Godel established that Int F ) S4 t(F) thus providing an exact reading of the Int formulas as statements about provability in classical mathematics. He conjectured that the inverse ( also holds. This conjecture was eventually established in [49]. However, the ultimate goal of defining Int via the notion of a proof in classical mathematics had not been achieved because S4 was left without an exact intended semantics of 5 the provability operator 2. Godel himself was the first who addressed the issue of provability semantics for S4 ....

....r (mt(F ) r ) is derivable in LP. 8.7 Theorem. Realization of intuitionistic logic) For any Int formula F 1. Int F , F is GK realizable, 33 2. Int F , F is MT realizable Proof. It is well known that Int F iff S4 gk(F ) see, for example, 18] and Int F iff S4 mt(F ) 25] [49]) A straightforward combination of these results with the realization of S4 into LP (Theorem 8.2) brings us the desired result. J 8.8 Corollary. Arithmetical completeness of Int. Int F iff there is a realization r and constant specification CS such that gk(F ) r is CS valid (mt(F ) r is ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, "Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting", Journal of Symbolic Logic, v. 13, pp. 1-15, 1948.

....r is arithmetically TS valid for some (normal) realization r and some terms specification TS. Godel in [8] defined a translation tr of intuitionistic formulas, into S4 formulas where tr(F) is obtained from F by boxing all atoms and all implications in F . This Godel translation is shown ( 8] [14]) to provide a faithful embedding of Int in S4. The proof interpretation of LP terms above provides a faithful proof arithmetical realization of Int: Int F , tr(F ) r is arithmetically TS valid for some (normal) realization r and some terms specification TS. A direct realization of Int in ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, "Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting", Journal of Symbolic Logic, v. 13 (1948), pp. 1-15.

....problem [ Bennett, 1994 ] gave an encoding in intuitionistic propositional logic of a signi cant subset of relations expressible in RCC. Subsequently a more exible representation was given based on the modal logic S4 [ Bennett, 1996 ] which exploits Tarski s topological interpretation of S4 [ Tarski and McKinsey, 1948 ] To make these 0 order representations suciently expressive (e.g. to represent the RCC 8 relations) it is necessary. di erentiate between topological constraints which hold at all points of space (originally called model constraints) and conditions which do not hold at every point (originally ....

A. Tarski and J.C.C. McKinsey. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1-15, 1948.

....testing procedure: a situation is consistent if none of the entailment constraint formulae in its representation is entailed by the set of all the model constraints in the representation. 2. 1 Modal Encoding of RCC 8 Exploiting the topological interpretation of the modal logic S4 given by [ Tarski and McKinsey, 1948 ] Bennett, 1996 ] gave an alternative encoding of topological constraints in S4. He also showed how the e ect of the meta level segregation of formulae into model and entailment constraints can be achieved at the object level by employing an additional S5 modal operator. 1 In this paper we ....

....points. Consequently, every point which we know lies in the exterior of r must lie outside every triangle of points which 4 In theory one could feed the algebraic constraints generated by the construction given in [Davis et al. 1997] into Tarski s decision procedure for algebra and geometry [Tarski, 1948] . However this would be horrendously intractable. are in the interior or boundary of r. This leads to a set of easily stated (though not so easily enforced) constraints which can be applied to points in a witness point model of some RCC 8 relations. These constraints will be accumulated during ....

A. Tarski and J.C.C. McKinsey. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1-15, 1948.

....B, hence by Theorem 2 we know that 3 (A) is a theorem of S4. Theorem 9 For h formula A, if I A is provable in ffi Kth then A is a theorem of IC. Proof: Inspection of 3 shows that for A an h formulae, 1 (A) 2 (A) 3 (A) is exactly the Godel McKinsey Tarski translation of IC into S4 [MT48]. It is well known that for an h formula A, the translation 3 (A) is a theorem of modal logic S4 iff A is a theorem of IC. Since A is an h formulae and I A is provable in ffi Kth we know that 3 (A) is a theorem of S4 by Theorem 8. Hence the h formula A is a theorem of IC. 3.8 ....

J. C. C. McKinsey and Alfred Tarski. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1--15, 1948. (Cited on page 20)

....decidable. As an alternative, Bennett has proposed to interpret regions as subsets of a topological space [2] There is a close connection between propositional languages describing sets in topological spaces and modal propositional logics, which has already been pointed out by McKinsey and Tarski [7, 8]. Bennett gave a translation of RCC8 constraints to formulas in a multimodal logic. However, in his work a thorough semantical foundation of RCC8 and of the translation into modal logic is missing. In particular, it is unclear whether the translation preserves the satisfiability of constraints. ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. J. Symbolic Logic, 13(1):1--15, 1948.

....Self Reference and Modal Logic. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1985. 22] R. Stalnaker. A note on non monotonic modal logic. unpublished notes. 1980. 23] R. Stalnaker. A note on non monotonic modal logic. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 64:183 196, 1993. extended version of the unpublished notes. [24] M. Truszczy nski. Modal interpretations of default logic. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 91) pages 393 398, 1991. Received 20 September 1994. Revised 6 March Modal Logics for Qualitative Spatial Reasoning BRANDON BENNETT, ....

....are specified in essentially the same way as the classical connectives. They also seem to be more natural from the point of view of spatial interpretations. Algebraic semantics is actually the oldest formal interpretation for modal logics: an algebraic interpretation of S4 was given by Tarski [24]; but, since Kripke s results [12] relational semantics has been given far more attention. The relationship between algebraic semantics and Kripke models was first studied by Lemmon [14, 15] who introduced the term modal algebra (however, a theory of Boolean algebras with additional ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Tarski and J.C.C. McKinsey. Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13:1--15, 1948.

....realization r: 4.5 Comment. The realization algorithm above produces a normal realization. Godel in [4] defined a translation tr of an intuitionistic formula, into an S4 formula where tr(F) is obtained from F by prefixing every subformula of the latter by 2. This Godel translation is shown ( 4] [9]) to provide an exact embedding of Int into S4: for any Int formula F Int F , S4 tr(F ) The Brouwer Heyting Kolmogorov operations via Godel embedding of Int into S4 may now be regarded as LP terms under normal realization of S4. The proof interpretation of LP terms makes this ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, "Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting", Journ.Symb. Logic, v. 13 (1948), pp. 1-15.

.... F , F r is arithmetically AS valid for some realization r and some axiom specification AS. Godel in [6] defined a translation tr of intuitionistic formulas, into S4 formulas where tr(F) is obtained from F by boxing all atoms and all implications in F . This Godel translation is shown ( 6] [9]) to provide a faithful embedding of Int into S4. The proof interpretation of LP terms above provides a faithful proof arithmetical realization of Int: Int F , tr(F ) r is arithmetically AS valid for some normal realization r and some axiom specification AS. 5 Functional completeness It ....

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, "Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting", Journ.Symb. Logic, v. 13 (1948), pp. 1-15.

....relating and classical negation. This work has quite a detailed study of persistence. Notes 1 We should also recall here the formal similarity with Godel s famous [5] noting the relation between S4 and Intuitionistic sentence logic referred to three mappings for negation: McKinsey and Tarski [7] showed that each of these preserve theoremhodd in both directions. 2 Rabinowicz [11] briefly considered an operator it is now verified in roughly our sense as a model for intuitionistic thruth, but settled instead for it is verifiable because of the logical difficulties the approach leads ....

....for it is verifiable because of the logical difficulties the approach leads to. 1 We should also recall here the formal similarity with Godel s famous [5] noting the relation between S4 and Intuitionistic sentence logic referred to three mappings for negation: j or j or j. McKinsey and Tarski [7] showed that each of these preserve theoremhood in both directions. 2 Rabinowicz [11] briefly considered an operator it is now verified in roughly our sense as a model for intuitionistic truth, but settled instead for it is verifiable because of the logical difficulties the approach leads ....

McKinsey, J., and A. Tarski, "Some Theorems About The Sentential Calculi Of Lewis And Heyting," Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol 13 (1948), pp. 1-15

....study of persistence. 22 Notes 1 Williamson [16] is a comprehensive recent study of the Sorites. 2 We should also recall here Godel s famous [5] noting the relation between S4 and Intuitionistic sentence logic referred to three mappings for negation: j or j or j. McKinsey and Tarski [7] showed that each of these preserve theoremhood in both directions. 3 Rabinowicz [11] briefly considered an operator it is now verified in roughly our sense as a model for intuitionistic truth, but settled instead for it is verifiable because of the logical difficulties the approach leads ....

McKinsey, J., and A. Tarski, "Some Theorems About The Sentential Calculi Of Lewis And Heyting," Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol 13 (1948), pp. 1-15

No context found.

J. C. C. McKinsey and Alfred Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 1-- 15.

No context found.

J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, Journal of Symbolic Logic 13(1948), pp. 1-15.

No context found.

J. C. C. McKinsey and Alfred Tarski, Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 1-- 15.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC