Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:27:35.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Noncompactness in propositional modal logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

S. K. Thomason*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby 2, British Columbia, Canada

Extract

We have come to believe that propositional modal logic (with the usual relational semantics) must be understood as a rather strong fragment of classical second-order predicate logic. (The interpretation of propositional modal logic in second-order predicate logic is well known; see e.g. [2, §1].) “Strong” refers of course to the expressive power of the languages, not to the deductive power of formal systems. By “rather strong” we mean sufficiently strong that theorems about first-order logic which fail for second-order logic usually fail even for propositional modal logic. Some evidence for this belief is contained in [2] and [3]. In the former is exhibited a finitely axiomatized consistent tense logic having no relational models, and the latter presents a finitely axiomatized modal logic between T and S4, such that □p → □2p is valid in all relational models of the logic but is not a thesis of the logic. The result of [2] is strong evidence that bimodal logic is essentially second-order, but that of [3] does not eliminate the possibility that unimodal logic only appears to be incomplete because we have not adopted sufficiently powerful rules of inference. In the present paper we present stronger evidence of the essentially second-order nature of unimodal logic.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

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]Bull, R. A., That all normal extensions of S4.3 have the finite model property, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 12 (1966), pp. 341344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Thomason, S. K., Semantic analysis of tense logics, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 150158.Google Scholar
[3]Thomason, S. K., An incompleteness theorem in modal logic, Theoria (to appear).Google Scholar