Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

General Models and Entailment Semantics for Independence Logic

Pietro Galliani

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

We develop a semantics for independence logic with respect to what we will call general models. We then introduce a simpler entailment semantics for the same logic, and we reduce the validity problem in the former to the validity problem in the latter. Then we build a proof system for independence logic and prove its soundness and completeness with respect to entailment semantics.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 54, Number 2 (2013), 253-275.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 21 February 2013

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1361454977

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-1960506

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3028798

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1269.03031

Subjects
Primary: 03B60: Other nonclassical logic
Secondary: 03F03: Proof theory, general

Keywords
dependence logic independence logic proof theory

Citation

Galliani, Pietro. General Models and Entailment Semantics for Independence Logic. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 54 (2013), no. 2, 253--275. doi:10.1215/00294527-1960506. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1361454977


Export citation

References

  • [1] Abramsky, S., and J. Väänänen, “From IF to BI: A tale of dependence and separation,” Synthese, vol. 167 (2009), pp. 207–30.
  • [2] Cameron, P., and W. Hodges, “Some combinatorics of imperfect information,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 66 (2001), pp. 673–84.
  • [3] Engström, F., “Generalized quantifiers in dependence logic,” to appear in Journal of Logic, Language and Information, preprint, arXiv:1103.0396v4 [math.LO]
  • [4] Galliani, P., “Inclusion and exclusion dependencies in team semantics: On some logics of imperfect information,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 163 (2012), pp. 68–84.
  • [5] Grädel, E., and J. Väänänen, “Dependence and independence,” to appear in Studia Logica, preprint, arXiv:1208.5268v1 [cs.LO]
  • [6] Henkin, L., “Completeness in the theory of types,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 81–91.
  • [7] Henkin, L., “Some remarks on infinitely long formulas,” pp. 167–83 in Infinitistic Methods (Warsaw, 1959), Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK; Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, 1961.
  • [8] Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu, “Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon,” pp. 571–89 in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. VIII (Moscow, 1987), vol. 126 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.
  • [9] Hodges, W., “Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information,” Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, vol. 5 (1997), pp. 539–63.
  • [10] Kontinen, J., “Coherence and computational complexity of quantifier-free dependence logic formulas,” pp. 58–77 in Proceedings of Dependence and Independence in Logic (Copenhagen, 2010), edited by J. Kontinen and J. Väänänen, ESSLLI, 2010, http://www.illc.uva.nl/dependence/proceedings.pdf.
  • [11] Kontinen, J., and J. Väänänen, “On definability in dependence logic,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 18(2009), pp. 317–32. Erratum, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 20 (2011), pp. 133–134.
  • [12] Kontinen, J., and J. Väänänen, “Axiomatizing first-order consequences in dependence logic,” preprint, arXiv:1208.0176v1 [math. LO].
  • [13] López-Escobar, E. G. K., “Formalizing a nonlinear Henkin quantifier,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 138 (1991), pp. 83–101.
  • [14] Nurmi, V., “Dependence logic: Investigations into higher-order semantics defined on teams,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 2009.
  • [15] Tulenheimo, T., “Independence-friendly modal logic,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 2004.
  • [16] Väänänen, J., Dependence Logic: A New Approach to Independence Friendly Logic, vol. 70 of London Mathematical Society Student Texts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
  • [17] Väänänen, J., “Team logic,” pp. 281–302 in Interactive Logic, edited by J. van Bentham, D. Gabbay, and B. Lowe, vol. 1 of Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2007.
  • [18] Väänänen, J., “Modal dependence logic,” pp. 237–254 in New Perspectives on Games and Interaction, edited by K. Apt and R. van Rooij, vol. 4 of Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2008.
  • [19] Yang, F., “Expressing second-order sentences in intuitionistic dependence logic,” pp. 118–32 in Proceedings of Dependence and Independence in Logic (Copenhagen, 2010), edited by J. Kontinen and J. Väänänen, ESSLLI, 2010, http://www.illc.uva.nl/dependence/proceedings.pdf.