Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:13:33.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Algebraic semantics for modal logics II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

E. J. Lemmon
E. J. Lemmon*
Affiliation:
Claremont Graduate School Claremont, California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a sequel to [7], and the terminology of [7] is largely presupposed here. In [7], the algebraic methods of McKinsey-Tarski were employed and extended to yield semantic results of a Kripke kind for a class of relatively weak modal logics, the strongest of which was the Feysvon Wright system T. Deontic versions of both T and E2, called T(D) and D2, and even weaker systems, were handled. The main aim of the present paper is to extend these results to stronger systems of modal logic. Thus the Lewis systems S2–S5, the Brouwersche system B of Kripke [4], the systems E3–E5 of [5], and Łukasiewicz's modal logic, as well as certain new systems, are considered.

Certain modifications of the method of [7] have proved convenient. Thus in Section I, some further results concerning model structures are proved in order that the relationship between S2 and E2, S3 and E3, can be properly stated; in particular, the notions of a refined and connected model structure play a pervasive role throughout.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 1966, pp. 191 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1966

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Dugundji, J., Note on a property of matrices for Lewis and Langford's calculi of propositions, this Journal, vol. 5 (1940), pp. 150–151.Google Scholar
[2]Dummett, M. A. E. and Lemmon, E. J., Modal logics between S4 and S5, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 5 (1959), pp. 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Halldén, Sörén, Results concerning the decision problem of Lewis's calculi S3 and S6, this Journal, vol. 14 (1950), pp. 230–236.Google Scholar
[4]Kripke, Saul A., Semantical analysis of modal logic I, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 9 (1963), pp. 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Lemmon, E. J., New foundations for Lewis modal systems, this Journal, vol. 22 (1957), pp. 176–186.Google Scholar
[6]Lemmon, E. J., Extension algebras and the modal system T, Notre Dame journal of formal logic, vol. 1 (1960), pp. 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Lemmon, E. J., Algebraic semantics for modal logics I, forthcoming in this Journal.Google Scholar
[8]Lemmon, E. J., Some results on finite axiomatizability in modal logic, forthcoming in Notre Dame journal of formal logic.Google Scholar
[9]Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. H., Symbolic logic, New York, 1932.Google Scholar
[10]Łukasiewicz, J., A system of modal logic, Journal of computing systems, vol. 1 (1953), pp. 111–149.Google Scholar
[11]McKinsey, J. C. C., A solution of the decision problem for the Lewis systems S2 and S4, with an application to topology, this Journal, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 117–134.Google Scholar
[12]McKinsey, J. C. C. and Tarski, Alfred, The algebra of topology, Annals of mathematics, vol. 45 (1944), pp. 141–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Tuthill Parry, William, Modalities in the Survey system of strict implication, this Journal, vol. 4 (1939), pp. 137–154.Google Scholar
[14]Prior, A. N., Formal logic (2nd edition), Oxford, 1962.Google Scholar
[15]Simons, L., New axiomatizations of S3 and S4, this Journal, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 309–316.Google Scholar
[16]Smiley, Timothy, On Łukasiewicz's Ł-modal system, Notre Dame journal of formal logic, vol. 2 (1961), pp. 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Stoll, Robert R., Set theory and logic, San Francisco, 1961.Google Scholar
[18]Yonemitsu, Naoto, Review of [5], this Journal, vol. 23 (1958), pp. 346–347.Google Scholar