We take Carnap’s problem to be to what extent standard consequence relations in various formal languages fix the meaning of their logical vocabulary, alone or together with additional constraints on the form of the semantics. This paper studies Carnap’s problem for basic modal logic. Setting the stage, we show that neighborhood semantics is the most general form of compositional possible worlds semantics, and proceed to ask which standard modal logics (if any) constrain the box operator to be interpreted as in relational Kripke semantics. Except when restricted to finite domains, no modal logic characterizes exactly the Kripkean interpretations of $\Box $ . Moreover, we show that, in contrast with the case of first-order logic, the obvious requirement of permutation invariance is not adequate in the modal case. After pointing out some known facts about modal logics that nevertheless force the Kripkean interpretation, we focus on another feature often taken to embody the gist of modal logic: locality. We show that invariance under point-generated subframes (properly defined) does single out the Kripkean interpretations, but only among topological interpretations, not in general. Finally, we define a notion of bisimulation invariance—another aspect of locality—that, together with a reasonable closure condition, gives the desired general result. Along the way, we propose a new perspective on normal neighborhood frames as filter frames, consisting of a set of worlds equipped with an accessibility relation, and a free filter at every world.

We investigate the mathematics of a model of the human mind which has been proposed by the psychologist Jens Mammen. Mathematical realizations of this model consists of what the first author (A.T.) has called Mammen spaces, where a Mammen space is a triple $(U,\mathcal S,\mathcal C)$, where U is a non-empty set (“the universe”), $\mathcal S$ is a perfect Hausdorff topology on U, and $\mathcal C\subseteq \mathcal P(U)$ together with $\mathcal S$ satisfy certain axioms.

We refute a conjecture put forward by Hoffmann-Jørgensen, who conjectured that the existence of a “complete” Mammen space implies the Axiom of Choice, by showing that in the first Cohen model, in which ZF holds but AC fails, there is a complete Mammen space. We obtain this by proving that in the first Cohen model, every perfect topology can be extended to a maximal perfect topology.

On the other hand, we also show that if all sets are Lebesgue measurable, or all sets are Baire measurable, then there are no complete Mammen spaces with a countable universe.

Further, we investigate two new cardinal invariants $\mathfrak u_{M}$ and $\mathfrak u_{T}$ associated with complete Mammen spaces and maximal perfect topologies, and establish some basic inequalities that are provable in ZFC. Then we show $\mathfrak u_{M}=\mathfrak u_{T}=2^{\aleph _{0}}$ follows from Martin’s Axiom, and, contrastingly, we show that $\aleph _{1}=\mathfrak u_{M}=\mathfrak u_{T}<2^{\aleph _{0}}=\aleph _{2}$ in the Baumgartner–Laver model.

Finally, consequences for psychology are discussed.

We present a series of proof systems for exact entailment (i.e., relevant truthmaker preservation from premises to conclusion) and prove soundness and completeness. Using the proof systems, we observe that exact entailment is hyperintensional not only in the sense of Cresswell, but also in the sense recently proposed by Odintsov and Wansing.

I provide an analysis of sentences of the form ‘To be F is to be G’ in terms of exact truth-maker semantics—an approach that identifies the meanings of sentences with the states of the world directly responsible for their truth-values. Roughly, I argue that these sentences hold just in case that which makes something F also makes it G. This approach is hyperintensional and possesses desirable logical and modal features. In particular, these sentences are reflexive, transitive, and symmetric, and if they are true, then they are necessarily true, and it is necessary that all and only Fs are Gs. I motivate my account over Correia and Skiles’ [11] prominent alternative and close by defining an irreflexive and asymmetric notion of analysis in terms of the symmetric and reflexive notion.

Minimally inconsistent LP (MiLP) is a nonmonotonic paraconsistent logic based on Graham Priest’s logic of paradox (LP). Unlike LP, MiLP purports to recover, in consistent situations, all of classical reasoning. The present paper conducts a proof-theoretic analysis of MiLP. I highlight certain properties of this logic, introduce a simple sequent system for it, and establish soundness and completeness results. In addition, I show how to use my proof system in response to a criticism of this logic put forward by J. C. Beall.

The paper provides a proof theoretic characterization of the Russellian theory of definite descriptions (RDD) as characterized by Kalish, Montague and Mar (KMM). To this effect three sequent calculi are introduced: LKID0, LKID1 and LKID2. LKID0 is an auxiliary system which is easily shown to be equivalent to KMM. The main research is devoted to LKID1 and LKID2. The former is simpler in the sense of having smaller number of rules and, after small change, satisfies cut elimination but fails to satisfy the subformula property. In LKID2 an additional analysis of different kinds of identities leads to proliferation of rules but yields the subformula property. This refined proof theoretic analysis leading to fully analytic calculus with constructive proof of cut elimination is the main contribution of the paper.

In his paper on the incompleteness theorems, Gödel seemed to say that a direct way of constructing a formula that says of itself that it is unprovable might involve a faulty circularity. In this note, it is proved that ‘direct’ self-reference can actually be used to prove his result.