Professional Documents
Culture Documents
&
Q 1. Introduction
The modal predicate logic PS*S [l] is based on the 6-valued modal propositional
logic S*S [ 2 ] . I n PS we work,with four kinds of provability and rejection: PSik
and P s i + , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and in the semantics four kinds of validity: PSi-validity.
The formal system PS ( $ 2 ) is based on SMULLYANS
analytic tableaux as applied
to quantification theory [3] (especially Chs. IV, V) but here we present simplified
tableaux which make use of definitional rules. I n 4 3 only a summary of the semantics PS* is given. I n $ 4 we show that every closed wff (cwff) of PS is Psi-equivalent
(i.e. equivalent w.r.t. PsiI-) to a cwff in prenex normal form. We obtain as a simple
corollary the result that every modality de re is PS,-equivalent to a modality de
dicto. I n 9 5 we turn attention to the underlying modal propositional logic S*S
and give a informal account of the idea of a new algebra of sets grounded on S*S:
the GROSSETESTE
algebra of sets GS*S. Throughout this paper i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and
i = 1,2.
5 2.
I. D e f i n i t i o n a l R u l e s
1.
XKXY
XNANXN Y
2.
SAXY
XCCX Y Y
3.
N o t e : in 6. j = 2 delete I I X
I1Y
SEXY
SKCXYCYX
4.
XLX
XNMNX
5.
StlXZ.X
SN3xNZ.r
272
ROBERT L. WILSON
111. Modal R u l e s ( M , T)
TlMX
13.
TiX 1 F i x I I X
T J
14. T,MX
15. F,MX
16.
T,X
FZX
IV. RuIes f o r Quantifiers
12.
18. T , ~ s Z
Tie:
19. Fj3&
FjZ:
20.
I1TX
FIX I I1X
T z T X 17. FzTX
T2X
F2X
(3)
113~2
I1 2:
FIZZ 112:
Definitions of P s i - P r o v a b i l i t y a n d P s i - R e j e c t i o n
Closed PS-tableaux are tableaux in which every branch is closed i.e. every branch
is either incompatible (containing two swff which differ only in sign) or broken
(containing a swff of the form F I M X , I I M X , T I T X or F I T X ) . Let s ( S X ) denote
a tableau with S X as origin.
Let Gstand for there exists a closed tableau. .. and
exists an open branch. . ..
0 stand
for there
D 2. PS, t. X if Gs ( F , X ) .
D3. PS3 t X if Q $ ( F I X )and Q $ ( I I X ) and Q ( F , X ) .
D4. PS, t- X if G $ ( F I X ) and Q ( I 1 X )or G S ( F , X ) .
and, or
D5. For PS; X , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , replace t, 6
s,
Tp is interpreted as p is C,-true.
273
The semantic rules for the quantifiers V and 3 are such that under any PSCj.
int,erpretation :
VxPx is
2 . VxPx is
3. 3xPx is
4. 3xPx is
1.
Cj-true iff
Cj-false iff
Cj-false iff
Cj-true iff
1. PSI- and PS2-validity are defined by the two fundamental kinds of validity in
PS, PSCl- and PSC,-validity respectively.
274
ROBERT L. WILSON
S e m a n t i c a l C o m p l e t e n e s s f o r PS*S
(1) If X is PSi-vulid then
Psi k X.
IIVxPx is tl iff
VxPx is il
iff
iff
iff
iff
N3xNPx is il
iff
IlN3xNPx is tl.
E U , NPk is f l or NPk is il
11N3xNPx is PSC1-valid.
We also have analogous properties for all the PS-tableaux rules given in Q 2 (see
also SMULLYAN
[3] Chs. IV, V).
Q 4. Some Properties of the Formal System PS
The three derived rules DR1, DR2 and RDR2 [5] hold in PS. I n stating the
various properties we will speak of sub-systems Psi but it is important t o keep in
mind the fact that these are results that hold w.r.t. PSik in the full system PS.
The proofs, which are by PS-tableaux 4 2, are omitted.
2. E 3 x N P x ~ x P x
3. E3xMPxM3xPx
4. E3xLPxL3xPx
5 . E3xTPxT3xPx
6. EYxMPxMVxPx
7. EVxLPxLVxPx
8 . EVxTPxTVzPx.
The additional equivalences involving the non-modal functors C, A , K , and E needed for our result (e.g. SMULLYAN
[3] p. 117) all hold in Psi. Hence we have the
result :
T h e o r e m P N F . Every cwff in Ps is PS,-equivalent to a cwff in prenex normal
form.
275
10. ELApqALpLq
11. ETApqATpTq
12. EMKpqKMpNq
13. ELKpqKLpLq
14. ETKpqKTpTq.
Before proceeding to the algebra GS*S we look first a t the modal propositional
logic associated with it, S*S. I n the next section we introduce two formal operators
into S*S, W and r, as these are needed for algebraic formulations.
Considering the tableaux rules for S (the propositional part of PS 5 2) we introduce two modal operators W and r with the following rules added to the S-t)ableaux
rules.
BrX
TIWX FlWX
I1W.X
TZWX
S N W N X T I X FIX I1X T , X ( F Z X .
---
(Signed wff of the form F,WX will yield broken branches.) I n the semantics S* we
give W, r the truth-tables shown in the following tables, and we add the tables
18*
276
ROBERT L. WILSON
for M ,L and T,the absolute possibility, absolute necessity and absolute verum
operators respectively.
277
I n the logic MS1, 5.1 the irreducible proper modalities are M p , Lp and T p .
ula
I n GSl, O l a = U 1 ,
= El and Ola = Il for every set a . Also
0 , a = O z a = a for every set a .
In MS, the proper irreducible modalities are Wp and r p . I n GS, &a = 11,
D 2 a = E,, O,a = O l a = Ola = a for any set a .
I n the logic S*S, the S,-tautology defining a n always true statement is
a derived one. Likewise in GS,, a sct thcorctie statcmcnt is a GS,-thcorcm
if it is a GS1-theorem and a GSz-theorem. I n GS3, the irreducible modal
operations are
01, 01, 0 1 , -01, -01,
0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 .
-01,
0 2 , 0 2 , -02,
- 0 2 ,
0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 ,
278
ROBERT L. WILSON
When we ask the meaning of a hybrid set like Ol&a in GS3 we can say
that, under C,, i.e. in GS1, O I O z a= O l a = I , the indeterminate set, and
under C2, i.e. in GSz, OIOza = O z a = Uz the universal set.
GSI: Like GS3, a set theoretic statement is a GS4-theorem if it is a GS1-theorem
or a GS2-theorem. (The feature of note is that the sub-logic MS4 is formally
inconsistent w.r.t. the functor N . ) If we return now to the semantics in GS1.
L4 statement x is a member of a set a is written as x E a and is C1-true,
C1-false or C1-indeterminate ( t , , f l or i l ) in GS:. For the complement - :
sE
NU
is t ,
iff
xEa if
fl
xE N U is f l iff x E a is tl
xE -a is i, iff x E a is i,.
For hhe operation of intersection n (Polish notation except for relations) :
iff
If x E a then x E b.
a = b
iff
bc
2. n a n bc
= vvabc
Distributive Laws
3. u a
n).
5. u a b = u b a
nnabe
(w, n ) .
bc = n u a b W a c
Commutative Laws
(w,
4. n a v be
= nab
ac.
-1.
6. n a b = n b a .
8. - n a b = u - a -
D i s t r i b u t i v e L a w s of M o d a l O p e r a t i o n s o v e r
10. V u a b = w V a V b
11. V n a b =
nva V b .
= a.
9.
b
u
and
n.
279
C o m m u t a t i v e Law f o r Modal O p e r a t i o n s .
12. VlV2U =
V2VlU.
L a w s of A b s o r p t i o n .
14. u a Ola = a
17. ~ a O =~ 0a2 a
15. n u O l a = a
18. ~a Oza = Oza
19. nuO2a = a
20. n u 0 2 a = Oza
21. u a O ~ O ~
= b0 1 0 2 c
22. uu 0 1 O 2 b = a
23. n u 0 1 0 2 b = a
24.
Ola
Ola = Ola
13. u a O l a
16.
*U
OiU2b
010~~-
Some Relations.
25. u c OiOzb
26. O1Ozac b
27. a c O l a
28. Ola
29. Ola c O l a
30. Ola c o l a
31. a c 0 2 a
32. U 2 a c a .
L a w s of C o m p l e m e n t s w i t h Modal O p e r a t i o n s .
33.
34.
O l U = 01-a
DlU =
35. - O l a
01-a
36. - 0 2 a = 0 2 - a
37. - 0 2 a = 0 2 - a
40. -0iOza =
38.
01-a
-olo2a= n1o2b
0102b.
S o m e R e d u c t i o n Laws.
41. V V a = V a
42.
4O I U
0101~
GSI:
44. O2a = u
47. n 1 V a = a l a
45. u2a = a
46. O l V a = O ~ U
48. 0 1 V a = O ~ U 49. a c Olb
50. O1a c b
51.
53. - o l a = Olb
54. - O l a
56*. n u
a =
66.
0101~
=
Ola 57*. a
GS2: 59. V l a a
62. a c Ozb
65. O z a = n b - b
G&:
c ~O1b
O ~c
U Olb
52.
O1b
Ola
=
55*. u a
58*.
a = Ola
Ola c a.
60. OzVa = O ~ U
61. n 2 V a
63. O2b c u
64. O ~ U u b
68. O i O i a
Oia
Ola
69. OIOla = O l a
67. OiOia
Ola
70. 0 2 0 2 a = O2a
73.
020102a
U201b
75. o z O l U 2 a= o201b
76. OzOiOza
OzOib
77. OzOlOza
80. 0 1 0 2 a c 0 1 0 2 b .
In GS3, O 1 0 2 aand ~
respectiveIy .
= O20lb
71. n20za
= n2a
n20102a
74.
= 0
O2Olb
~ are2 our
b hybrid universal set and empty set
280
GS,:
ROBERT L. WILSON
84.
&a = a
87. n a
=~
83. Ola = a
82. O l a = a
81.
85.
0 2 a= a
86. a c " 6
a cb
90. - O z a = 0 2 a
91. a z a = 0 2 a
93. O l a = -Ola
94*. a = - 0 l a
95*. If a = b and b
c then a
92. a = O l a
= C.
c Olb
99*. Olb = w a
98. Olb c Wa
loo*.
Ola
a.
Oza.
References
[I] WILSON,R. L., The modal predicate logics PF*F. Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic (KDJ)
(forthcoming).
[2] WILSON,R. L., On some modal logics related to the L-modal system. Notre Dame a. of
Formal Logic (NDJ) (forthcoming).
[3] SMULLYAN,
R. M., First-Order Logic. Berlin-Heidelberg-New
York 1968.
[4] SLUPECRI,J., The Full Three-Valued Propositional Logic. In [lo].
[5] WILSON,R. L., The nine-valued modal logic ME*E. This Zeitschr. 20 (1974), 381-288.
[GI HUGHES,
G. E., and M. J. CRESSWELL.
An Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen 1968.
[7] GROSSETESTE,
R., On Truth. Selections from Medieval Philosophers, Vol. I, Chicago 1929.
[8] MCKEON,R., Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Vol. I, Chicago 1929.
[9] LEWIS, C. I.. and C. H. LANGFORD,
Symbolic Logic. 2nd edition, Dover 1959.
[lo] MCCALL,S., (Editor) Polish Logic 1920-1939; Oxford 1967.
[11] BOOLE,G., An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. London 1554; reprinted, Chicago
1916.
[12] RRIPRE, S.,Semantical analysis of modal logics I, Normal propositional calculi. This
Zeitschr. 9 (19631, 67-96.