Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:11:49.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

First-order definability in modal logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

R. I. Goldblatt*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Extract

In the early days of the development of Kripke-style semantics for modal logic a great deal of effort was devoted to showing that particular axiom systems were characterised by a class of models describable by a first-order condition on a binary relation. For a time the approach seemed all encompassing, but recent work by Thomason [6] and Fine [2] has shown it to be somewhat limited—there are logics not determined by any class of Kripke models at all. In fact it now seems that modal logic is basically second-order in nature, in that any system may be analysed in terms of structures having a nominated class of second-order individuals (subsets) that serve as interpretations of propositional variables (cf. [7]). The question has thus arisen as to how much of modal logic can be handled in a first-order way, and precisely which modal sentences are determined by first-order conditions on their models. In this paper we present a model-theoretic characterisation of this class of sentences, and show that it does not include the much discussed LMpMLp.

Definition 1. A modal frame ℱ = 〈W, R〉 consists of a set W on which a binary relation R is defined. A valuation V on ℱ is a function that associates with each propositional variable p a subset V(p) of W (the set of points at which p is “true”).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1975

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]Bell, J. L. and Slomson, A. B., Models and ultraproducts, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
[2]Fine, Kit, An incomplete logic containing S4, Theoria (to appear).Google Scholar
[3]Lemmon, E. J. and Scott, Dana, Intensional logic, preliminary draft of initial chapters by Lemmon, E. J., 07 1966 (mimeographed).Google Scholar
[4]Robinson, A., Non-standard analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966.Google Scholar
[5]Segerberg, Krister, Decidability of S4.1, Theoria, vol. 34 (1968), pp. 720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Thomason, S. K., An incompleteness theorem in modal logic, Theoria (to appear).Google Scholar
[7]Thomason, S. K., Semantic analysis of tense logics, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 150158.Google Scholar