Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Model-Theoretic Results
Conclusion and Related Work
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Logic

Neighbourhood structures: Bisimilarity and basic model theory

Profile image of Eric PacuitEric Pacuit

2009, Logical Methods in Computer Science

https://doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-5
visibility

…

description

38 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Neighbourhood structures are the standard semantic tool used to reason about non-normal modal logics. The logic of all neighbourhood models is called classical modal logic. In coalgebraic terms, a neighbourhood frame is a coalgebra for the contravariant powerset functor composed with itself, denoted by 2 2 . We use this coalgebraic modelling to derive notions of equivalence between neighbourhood structures. 2 2 -bisimilarity and behavioural equivalence are well known coalgebraic concepts, and they are distinct, since 2 2 does not preserve weak pullbacks. We introduce a third, intermediate notion whose witnessing relations we call precocongruences (based on pushouts). We give back-and-forth style characterisations for 2 2 -bisimulations and precocongruences, we show that on a single coalgebra, precocongruences capture behavioural equivalence, and that between neighbourhood structures, precocongruences are a better approximation of behavioural equivalence than 2 2 -bisimulations. We also introduce a notion of modal saturation for neighbourhood models, and investigate its relationship with definability and image-finiteness. We prove a Hennessy-Milner theorem for modally saturated and for image-finite neighbourhood models. Our main results are an analogue of Van Benthem's characterisation theorem and a model-theoretic proof of Craig interpolation for classical modal logic.

Related papers

Local properties in modal logic
Hans van Ditmarsch

Artificial Intelligence, 2012

and sharing with colleagues.

View PDFchevron_right
On Some Completeness Theorems in Modal Logic
David Makinson

Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 1966

View PDFchevron_right
On modal logics of model-theoretic relations
Denis I. Saveliev

arXiv (Cornell University), 2018

Given a class C of models, a binary relation R between models, and a model-theoretic language L, we consider the modal logic and the modal algebra of the theory of C in L where the modal operator is interpreted via R. We discuss how modal theories of C and R depend on the model-theoretic language, their Kripke completeness, and expressibility of the modality inside L. We calculate such theories for the submodel and the quotient relations. We prove a downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem for first-order language expanded with the modal operator for the extension relation between models.

View PDFchevron_right
The Finite Model Property of Quasi-transitive Modal Logic
Minghui Ma

arXiv: Logic in Computer Science, 2018

The finite model property of quasi-transitive modal logic $\mathsf{K}_2^3=\mathsf{K}\oplus \Box\Box p\rightarrow \Box\Box\Box p$ is established. This modal logic is conservatively extended to the tense logic $\mathsf{Kt}_2^3$. We present a Gentzen sequent calculus $\mathsf{G}$ for $\mathsf{Kt}_2^3$. The sequent calculus $\mathsf{G}$ has the finite algebra property by a finite syntactic construction. It follows that $\mathsf{Kt}_2^3$ and $\mathsf{K}_2^3$ have the finite model property.

View PDFchevron_right
Modal Logic and Universal Algebra I. Modal axiomatizations of structures. 3
Dimiter Vakarelov

imm.dtu.dk

We study the general problem of axiomatizing s tructures in the framework of modal logic and present a u niform method for complete axiomatization of the modal l ogics determined by a large family of classes o f s tructures of any signature.

View PDFchevron_right
About the unification type of modal logic K5 and its extensions
Mohammad Ardeshir

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe), 2021

We prove that all extensions of K45 have projective unification and K5 and some of its extensions are of unification type 1. The breakdown of the paper is as follows. Firstly, we prove in Proposition 9 that if L contains K45 then every formula has extension property in L. Secondly, generalizing some results obtained in [6], we prove in Proposition 13 that if L contains K5 then every L-unifiable formula is Lfiltering. Thirdly, imitating arguments used in [18, 19], we prove in Proposition 20 that if L contains K5 then every formula having extension property in L is L-projective. Fourthly, we prove in Proposition 21 that if L contains K5 and L is global 1 then for all substitutions σ, every formula L-unified by σ is implied by an L-projective formula based on the variables of the given formula and having σ as one of its L-unifiers. 2 Syntax and semantics Let VAR be a countably infinite set of variables (with typical members denoted x, y, etc). The set FOR of all formulas (with typical members denoted ϕ, ψ, etc) is inductively defined by • ϕ := x | ⊥ | ¬ϕ | (ϕ ∨ ϕ) | ϕ. We adopt the standard rules for omission of parentheses. The Boolean connectives , ∧, → and ↔ and the modal connective ♦ are defined as usual. For all ϕ∈FOR, let var(ϕ) be the set of all variables occurring in ϕ. For all finite X⊆VAR, let FOR X be the set of all ϕ∈FOR such that var(ϕ)⊆X. A substitution is a triple (X, Y, σ) where X, Y ⊆VAR are finite and σ : FOR X −→ FOR Y is a homomorphism. The sets X and Y are respectively its domain and its codomain. Let SUB be the set of all substitutions. We say that (X, Y, σ)∈SUB is variable-free if Y =∅. It is possible to compose two substitutions if the codomain of the first is equal to the domain of the second. The composition of (X, Y, σ), (Y, Z, τ)∈SUB (in symbols (X, Y, σ) • (Y, Z, τ)) is the substitution (X, Z, υ) such that for all x∈X, υ(x)=τ (σ(x)). When its domain and its codomain can be guessed from the context, the substitution (X, Y, σ) will be simply written σ 2. For all finite X, Y ⊆VAR, let SUB X,Y be the set of all σ∈SUB such that the domain of σ is X and the codomain of σ is Y. We say that L⊆FOR is a modal logic if the following conditions hold 3 : L contains all tautologies, L contains the formula (x → y) → (x → y), L is closed for modus ponens (for all ϕ, ψ∈FOR, if ϕ → ψ∈L and ϕ∈L then ψ∈L), L is closed for generalization (for all ϕ∈FOR, if ϕ∈L then ϕ∈L), 1 Globality is defined in Section 2. 2 However, when we write that two substitutions are equal, this will imply in any case that their domains are equal and their codomains are equal. 3 The modal logics considered in this paper are exactly the normal modal logics considered in standard textbooks such as [12, 13, 27].

View PDFchevron_right
Modal Formulas True at Some Point in Every Model
Lloyd Humberstone

The Australasian Journal of Logic, 2008

In a paper on the logical work of the Jains, Graham Priest considers a consequence relation, semantically characterized, which has a natural analogue in modal logic. Here we give a syntactic/axiomatic description of the modal formulas which are consequences of the empty set by this relation, which is to say: those formulas which are, for every model, true at some point in that model. 1 Another approach considered by Priest is a more traditional many-valued treatment, pursued earlier in Ganeri [3], one of the papers cited in and which can in turn be consulted for further historical references. (See also .) In more detail, it should be added that this manyvalued approach involves a 7-valued logic, while even Priest's modal-style treatment is "locally" -facet-by-facet, that is -3-valued. As Priest has pointed out to me, some of the bivalent modal discussion that follows would be sensitive to the choice of designated elements if that aspect of his modal treatment had been adopted.

View PDFchevron_right
Generalized Quantifiers Meet Modal Neighborhood Semantics
Johan Van Benthem

Springer eBooks, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
5 Model theory of modal logic
Valentin Goranko

Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
A relation between namesakes in modal logic
Timothy Williamson

1991

Abstract The closure under a certain rule of the modal system usually called “K4” is shown to be the modal system called “K4” by Sobocinski. A modal system S provides double cancellation iff for all sentences A and B, if⊣ S LA≡ LB and⊣ S MA≡ MB then⊣ SA≡ B. It is of course not required that⊣ S ((LA≡ LB) & (MA≡ MB))⊃(A≡ B). If S is any modal system, there is a smallest normal extension S+ of S providing double cancellation (terminology as in [1]).

View PDFchevron_right

References (44)

  1. P. Aczel and N.P. Mendler. A final coalgebra theorem. In D.H. Pitt, D.E. Rydeheard, P. Dybjer, A.M. Pitts, and A.Poigné, editors, Category Theory and Computer Science, volume 389 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 357-365, 1989.
  2. J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G.E. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories: The Joy of Cats. J. Wiley and Sons, 1990. Online version: http://katmat.math.uni-bremen.de/acc.
  3. J. Adámek and H.-E. Porst. On tree coalgebras and coalgebra presentations. Theoretical Computer Science, 311:257-283, 2004.
  4. R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 49(5):672-713, 2002.
  5. H. Andréka, J. van Benthem, and I. Németi. Back and forth between modal logic and classical logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 3:685 -720, 1995.
  6. H. Andréka, J. van Benthem, and I. Németi. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27(3):217-274, 1998.
  7. J. van Benthem. Modal Correspondence Theory. PhD thesis, Mathematical Institute, University of Amsterdam, 1976.
  8. J. van Benthem. Correspondence theory. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Extensions of Clas- sical Logic, volume II of Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 167-247. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.
  9. J. van Benthem. Information transfer across Chu spaces. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 8(6):719-731, 2000.
  10. P. Blackburn, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema. Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  11. B. ten Cate, D. Gabelaia, and D. Sustretov. Modal languages for topology: Expressivity and definability. To appear in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. Preprint available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/ 0610357.
  12. C. Chang and H. Keisler. Model Theory. North-Holland, 1973.
  13. B.F. Chellas. Modal Logic -An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1980.
  14. K. Došen. Duality between modal algebras and neighbourhood frames. Studia Logica, 48:219-234, 1989.
  15. J. Flum and M. Ziegler. Topological Model Theory, volume 769 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Verlag, 1980.
  16. D.M. Gabbay and L. Maksimova. Interpolation and Definability: Modal and Intuitionistic Logic. Num- ber 46 in Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, 2005.
  17. L. Goble. Murder most gentle: The paradox deepens. Philosophical Studies, 64(2):217-227, 1991.
  18. H.P. Gumm. Functors for coalgebras. Algebra Universalis, 45:135-147, 2001.
  19. H.P. Gumm and T. Schröder. Types and coalgebraic structure. Algebra universalis, 53:229-252, 2005.
  20. H.H. Hansen. Monotonic modal logic (Master's thesis). Research Report PP-2003-24, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. University of Amsterdam, 2003.
  21. H.H. Hansen and C. Kupke. A coalgebraic perspective on monotone modal logic. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (CMCS), volume 106 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 121-143. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2004.
  22. H.H. Hansen, C. Kupke, and E. Pacuit. Bisimulation for neighbourhood structures. In T. Mossakowski et al., editor, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science (CALCO 2007), volume 4624 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 279-293. Springer, 2007.
  23. C. Kupke. Terminal sequence induction via games. In Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Sym- posium on Language, Logic and Computation, 2008.
  24. C. Kupke, A. Kurz, and D. Pattinson. Ultrafilter extensions for coalgebras. In J.L. Fiadero, N. Harman, M. Roggenbach, and J.J.M.M. Rutten, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Algebraic and Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (CALCO 2005), volume 3629 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 263-277. Springer, 2005.
  25. A. Kurz. Personal communication.
  26. A. Kurz. Logics for Coalgebras and Applications to Computer Science. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians- Universität, 2000.
  27. A. Kurz and J. Rosický. The Goldblatt-Thomason-theorem for coalgebras. In T. Mossakowski et al., editor, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science (CALCO), volume 4624 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 342-355. Springer, 2007.
  28. J. Madarász. Interpolation and amalgamation; pushing the limits. Part I. Studia Logica, 61:311-345, 1998.
  29. J. Madarász. Interpolation and amalgamation; pushing the limits. Part II. Studia Logica, 62:1-19, 1999.
  30. M. Marx. Algebraic Relativization and Arrow Logic. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1995.
  31. R. Montague. Universal grammar. Theoria, 36:373-398, 1970.
  32. M. Otto. Bisimulation invariance and finite models. In W. Pohlers Z. Chatzidakis, P. Koepke, editor, Logic Colloquium '02, volume 27 of Lecture Notes in Logic, pages 276-298. Association for Symbolic Logic, 2006.
  33. V. Padmanabhan, G. Governatori, and K. Su. Knowledge assesment: A modal logic approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning for Answering Questions (KRAQ), 2007.
  34. D. Pattinson. An introduction to the theory of coalgebras. Lecture notes accompanying the course at NASSLLI 2003. Available at http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/ ∼ pattinso/Publications/nasslli.all. ps.gz.
  35. D. Pattinson. Coalgebraic modal logic: Soundness, completeness and decidability of local consequence. Theoretical Computer Science, 309(1-3):177-193, 2003.
  36. M. Pauly. Bisimulation for general non-normal modal logic. Manuscript (unpublished), 1999.
  37. M. Pauly. Logic for Social Software. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2001.
  38. M. Pauly. A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1):149- 166, 2002.
  39. J.J.M.M. Rutten. Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 249:3-80, 2000.
  40. L. Schröder. Expressivity of coalgebraic modal logic: The limits and beyond. Theoretical Computer Science, 390:230-247, 2008.
  41. D. Scott. Advice on modal logic. In K. Lambert, editor, Philosophical Problems in Logic, pages 143-173. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970.
  42. K. Segerberg. An Esssay in Classical Modal Logic. Number 13 in Filosofiska Studier. Uppsala Universitet, 1971.
  43. M.Y. Vardi. On epistemic logic and logical omniscience. In J. Halpern, editor, Proceedings of the 1986 Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK), pages 293-305. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.
  44. Y. Venema. Algebras and coalgebras. In P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, and F. Wolter, editors, Handbook of Modal Logic, volume 3 of Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, pages 331-426. Elsevier, 2006.

Related papers

Saturated neighbourhood models of Monotonic Modal Logics
Sergio Celani

Revista De La Union Matematica Argentina, 2008

In this paper we shall introduce the notions of point-closed, pointcompact, and m-saturated monotonic neighbourhood models. We will give some characterizations, and we will prove that the ultrafilter extension and the valuation extension of a model are m-saturated.

View PDFchevron_right
Notes on modal definability
Johan van Benthem

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1988

This paper contains a few observations on the definability of frame classes in modal logic, utilizing current algebraic methods in the area. For technical background, see [3], [4]. Possible worlds frames induce modal algebras of their subsets, and conversely, modal algebras can be represented as frame-induced set algebras by the Stone ultrafilter representation. This back-and-forth connection allows for a transfer of existing definability results in Universal Algebra to the model theory of possible worlds frames. One notable result is that, in translating the Birkhoff characterization of equational varieties, if a frame F validates the full modal theory of some frame class K, then the following structural connection exists: The 'ultrafilter extension' ue(F) is a generated subframe of a p-morphic image of an ultraf ilter extension of some disjoint union of frames in K. Several wellknown theorems on the modal definability of frame classes have been deduced from this and similar observations. Here we shall take a closer look at the structure of the ultraf ilter extensions involved (Section 2), deriving some additional definability results (Section 3). Then we particularize the theory to an important special case, viz. that of finite frames, which turns out to require additional techniques (Section 4). Finally, another specialization is considered, to the case of singleton classes K, i.e. to the study of modal equivalence between frames (Section 5). The notion of an ultrafilter extension and its various uses forms a red thread through this report-which is otherwise a loose collection of results 'rounding out' the existing literature. The contents of this paper form a response to the work of several people. A reading of Fine [13] led to Section 3.1, a review of Sambin & Vaccaro [24] to Section 3.2. Also, notably, involvement with Rodenburg [23] and Doets [9] produced Section 4. And finally, a correspondence with Kees Doets and Dick de Jongh inspired Section 5.2. I would also wish to thank the referee of this Journal for several valuable suggestions.

View PDFchevron_right
On Strong Neighbourhood Completeness Of Modal And Intermediate Propositional Logics (Part II)
Valentin Shehtman

The property of strong neighbourhood completeness was introduced in the first part of this paper. By modifying the ultrabouqet construction, we prove this property for all Kripke-complete normal K4-logics and for a large class of Kripke-complete polymodal logics (called `acyclic). On the other hand, we present a simple counterexample of a polymodal logic with the f.m.p. which is not strongly neighbourhood complete. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Ultrabouqets of transitive frames. 4 3 From K-completeness to S-N-completeness 7 4 S-N-incompleteness 9 5 Conclusion 10 # This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research 1 1 Introduction This paper is a continuation of [8], but a happy occasion on which it has been written -- Johan Van Benthem's 50th birthday -- suggests us to look at the topic from a more general viewpoint. Indeed, it is closely related to Correspondence Theory, a large area in modal logic discovered 25 years ago, mainly in the works of Johan...

View PDFchevron_right
Modal Languages and Bounded Fragments of Predicate Logic
Hajnal Andréka, Andreka Hajnal, István Németi, Johan van Benthem

Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1998

Here, a bisimulation is a binary relation between the domains of two first-order models linking points with the same unary predicates P , corresponding to modal proposition letters p , and satisfying two 'back-and-forth' or 'zigzag clauses' with respect to relational R-successors. (More precisely, if x bisimulates y , and Rxz , then z bisimulates some u with Ryu , and vice versa. This is a kind of unbounded Ehrenfeucht Game with restricted choices of objects in each move -which has a natural generalization to the case with whole families of n-ary accessibility relations.)

View PDFchevron_right
Finite model property of modal logics of finite depth
Andrey Kudinov

Russian Mathematical Surveys, 2016

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Modal Logic
  • Model Theory
  • Pure Mathematics
  • Logical Methods in Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved