[FOM] Modal logics of contingency
Joao Marcos
vegetal at cle.unicamp.br
Fri Feb 14 19:34:59 EST 2003
Consider the unary modal operators L, for necessity, and M, for
possibility, and define the following operators:
C(A) = M(A) & M(~A)
D(A) = L(A) v L(~A)
So, C is the modal operator for contingency, and D is its dual. Among
other things, it is immediate to check, for instance, that C(A) is
equivalent to C(~A) and to ~D(A), and that D(A) is equivalent to D(~A)
and to ~C(A). It is equally obvious that D respects the G-rule, but
does not validate the K-axiom.
This much to fix some intended meaning for the above operators. Now,
start from a modal logic which has only C (and D) as primitive
operators, alongside with the classical ones. Call any such a logic a
*modal logic of contingency*. Question:
-o- Were such logics already investigated? References?
Obviously, given the above properties, there are no formulas depending
only on C-formulas and D-formulas which allow us to define L and M in
terms of them. Question:
-o- Is there any modal logic of contingency in which L or M can be
introduced by some other kind of definition?
If we restrict our attention to canonical modal frames, a direct proof
of com-pleteness for such modal logics of contingency may present some
gearbox diffi-culties. (In particular, notice from the above that they
will not in general constitute examples of normal modal logics.)
Question:
-o- Does anyone have an idea of how this proof could be done? Or had we
better change the underlying semantical structures?
Comments and references welcome!
--
___ ___
/ /\ /__/\
/ /:/ | |::\ JOAO MARCOS
/__/::\ | |:|:\
\__\/\:\ __|__|:|\:\ Centre for Logic, Epistemology
\ \:\ /__/::::| \:\ and the History of Science
\__\:\ \ \:\~~\__\/ Unicamp
/ /:/ \ \:\ CP 6133
/__/:/ \ \:\ 13083-970 Campinas - Brazil
\__\/ \ \:\
\__\/ Fax #: +55 19 3289 3269
http://www.geocities.com/jm_logica/
More information about the FOM
mailing list