Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Modal Logics with Non-rigid Propositional Designators

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (LORI 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14329))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 407 Accesses

Abstract

In most modal logics, atomic propositional symbols are directly representing the meaning of sentences (such as sets of possible worlds). In other words, they use only rigid propositional designators. This means they are not able to handle uncertainty in meaning directly at the sentential level. In this paper, we offer a modal language involving non-rigid propositional designators which can also carefully distinguish de re and de dicto use of these designators. Then, we axiomatize the logics in this language with respect to all Kripke models with multiple modalities and with respect to S5 Kripke models with a single modality.

This work is supported by NSSF 22CZX066. The author also thanks the anonymous referees and the audience of the 2023 Beijing International Summer Workshop on Formal Philosophy for their helpful comments and suggestions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Areces, C., ten Cate, B.: 14 hybrid logics. In: Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, pp. 821–868. Elsevier (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blackburn, P., Martins, M., Manzano, M., Huertas, A.: Rigid first-order hybrid logic. In: Iemhoff, R., Moortgat, M., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11541, pp. 53–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59533-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Blumberg, K.: Counterfactual attitudes and the relational analysis. Mind 127(506), 521–546 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blumberg, K.: Wishing, decision theory, and two-dimensional content. J. Philos. 120(2), 61–93 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, M.: Opaque updates. J. Philos. Log. 50(3), 447–470 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, M., Tang, W., Wang, Y.: De re updates. In: Halpern, J.Y., Perea, A. (eds.) Proceedings Eighteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK 2021. EPTCS, vol. 335, pp. 103–117 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ding, Y.: On the logics with propositional quantifiers extending S5\(\Pi \). In: Bezhanishvili, G., D’Agostino, G., Metcalfe, G., Studer, T. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic 12, pp. 219–235. College Publications (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ding, Y.: On the logic of belief and propositional quantification. J. Philos. Log. 50(5), 1143–1198 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dorst, K.: Evidence: a guide for the uncertain. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 100(3), 586–632 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fine, K.: Propositional quantifiers in modal logic. Theoria 36(3), 336–346 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fitting, M.: Modal logics between propositional and first-order. J. Log. Comput. 12(6), 1017–1026 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fitting, M.: Types, Tableaus, and Gödel’s God, vol. 12. Springer, Science, Dordrecht (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitting, M.: First-order intensional logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 127(1–3), 171–193 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fritz, P.: Axiomatizability of propositionally quantified modal logics on relational frames. J. Symbolic Logic, 1–38 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gallin, D.: Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Elsevier, Amesterdam (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gallow, J.D.: Updating for externalists. Noûs 55(3), 487–516 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gattinger, M., Wang, Y.: How to agree without understanding each other: public announcement logic with boolean definitions. In: Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science in Proceedings TARK 2019, pp. 297, 206–220 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Halpern, J.Y., Kets, W.: A logic for reasoning about ambiguity. Artif. Intell. 209, 1–10 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Halpern, J.Y., Kets, W.: Ambiguous language and common priors. Games Econom. Behav. 90, 171–180 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Holliday, W.: A note on algebraic semantics for S5 with propositional quantifiers. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60(2), 311–332 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Holliday, W., Pacuit, E.: Beliefs, propositions, and definite descriptions (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kaminski, M., Tiomkin, M.: The expressive power of second-order propositional modal logic. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 37(1), 35–43 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kocurek, A.W.: The logic of hyperlogic. Part A: foundations. Rev. Symbolic Logic, 1–28 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kocurek, A.W.: The logic of hyperlogic. Part B: extensions and restrictions. Rev. Symbolic Logic, 1–28 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kooi, B.: Dynamic term-modal logic. In: van Benthem, J., Ju, S., Veltman, F. (eds.) A meeting of the minds. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction, Beijing, 2007, pp. 173–185. College Publications (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leitgeb, H.: Hype: a system of hyperintensional logic (with an application to semantic paradoxes). J. Philos. Log. 48(2), 305–405 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Muskens, R.: 10 higher order modal logic. In: Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, pp. 621–653. Elsevier (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ninan, D.: Imagination, content, and the self. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sedlár, I.: Hyperintensional logics for everyone. Synthese 198(2), 933–956 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, Y., Wei, Y., Seligman, J.: Quantifier-free epistemic term-modal logic with assignment operator. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 173(3), 103071 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yifeng Ding

Authors
  1. Yifeng Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yifeng Ding .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Natasha Alechina

  2. CNRS, IRIT, Toulouse, France

    Andreas Herzig

  3. Shandong University, Jinan, China

    Fei Liang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ding, Y. (2023). Modal Logics with Non-rigid Propositional Designators. In: Alechina, N., Herzig, A., Liang, F. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14329. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45558-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45558-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45557-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45558-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships