Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Which Modal Logic Is the Right One?

John P. Burgess

Abstract

The question, "Which modal logic is the right one for logical necessity?," divides into two questions, one about model-theoretic validity, the other about proof-theoretic demonstrability. The arguments of Halldén and others that the right validity argument is S5, and the right demonstrability logic includes S4, are reviewed, and certain common objections are argued to be fallacious. A new argument, based on work of S\lupecki and Bryll, is presented for the claim that the right demonstrability logic must be contained in S5, and a more speculative argument for the claim that it does not include S4.2 is also presented.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 40, Number 1 (1999), 81-93.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 5 December 2002

Permanent link to this document
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039096306

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR1811204

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039096306

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
0972.03018

Subjects
Primary: 03B45: Modal logic (including the logic of norms) {For knowledge and belief, see 03B42; for temporal logic, see 03B44; for provability logic, see also 03F45}

Citation

Burgess, John P. Which Modal Logic Is the Right One?. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 40 (1999), no. 1, 81--93. doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039096306. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039096306.


Export citation

References

  • [1] Birkhoff, G., ``Rings of sets," Duke Mathematical Journal, vol. 3 (1937), pp. 443--54.
  • [2] Boolos, G., ``The logic of provability," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
  • [3] Burgess, J. P., ``The completeness of intuitionistic propositional calculus for its intended interpretation," Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 22 (1981), pp. 17-- 28.
  • [4] Carnap, R., ``Modalities and quantification," The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 11 (1946), pp. 33--64.
  • [5] Goranko, V., ``Refutation systems in modal logic," Studia Logica, vol. 53 (1994), pp. 299--324.
  • [6] Grzgorczyk, A., ``Some relational systems and the associated topological spaces," Fundamenta Mathematicæ, vol. 60 (1967), pp. 223--31.
  • [7] Halldén, S., ``A pragmatic approach to modal theory," Acta Philosophical Fennica, vol. 16 (1963), pp. 53--64.
  • [8] Hintikka, J., ``The modes of modality," Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 16 (1963), pp. 65--82.
  • [9] Kripke, S. A., ``Semantical considerations on modal logic," Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 16 (1963), pp. 83--94.
  • [10] Makinson, D., ``How meaningful are modal operators?," Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 44 (1966), pp. 331--37.
  • [11] McKinsey, J. C. C., ``A solution of the decision problem for the Lewis systems S2 and S4, with an application to topology," The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 117--34.
  • [12] McKinsey, J. C. C., ``On the syntactical construction of modal logic," The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 10 (1945), pp. 83--96.
  • [13] Scroggs, S. J., ``Extensions of the Lewis system S5," The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 16 (1951), pp. 112--20.
  • [14] Skura, T., ``A Ł ukasiewicz-style refutation system for the modal logic S4," Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 24 (1995), pp. 573--82.
  • [15] Sł upecki, J. and Bryll, G., ``Proof of the L-decidability of Lewis system S5," Studia Logica, vol. 32 (1973), pp. 99--105.
  • [16] Thomason, S. K., ``A new representation of S5," Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 14 (1973), pp. 281--87.