Article View: sci.logic
Article #121Re: Set theory and modal logic
From: Mikhail Zeleny
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:58
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:58
58 lines
2882 bytes
2882 bytes
In article <1992Apr13.114824.1745@nic.csu.net> suchenek@nic.csu.net writes: >In article <1992Apr12.193331.11012@husc3.harvard.edu>, >zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes: MZ: >> Observe that Ralph says that S4 and S5 are *subsystems* of classical logic >> extended with the axiom: A iff \box A. In that, he is absolutely correct: a >> subsystem needn't contain the axiom in question, but only a deductively >> closed proper subset of its consequences, e.g. those generated by \box A >> \supset A in the presence of classical laws. However, I am not sure >> whether he could do without an additional rule of inference, viz. the Rule >> of Necessitation: >> >> A >> ___ >> >> \box A >> >> which prima facie seems to be required for adequately characterizing S4 and >> S5, even if all of their theorems can probably be obtained by the above >> process. MS: >How, without the necessitation rule (and scheme K), can you get > > p \supset \box (\box (p \supset q) \supset (\box p \supset \box q)) > >(which is a theorem of S4 and S5), without proving too much, e.g. > > p \supset \box p > >(which is not a theorem of S4 and S5), where p is a propositional variable? Easy. We select a subsystem generated by all axioms of S5 (or S4). Do you doubt that these axioms could be obtained from A \equiv \box A ? In fact, on the purely syntactic level of abstraction we are considering, we needn't even concern ourselves with RNec and other such matters. >Greetings, > >Marek Suchenek regards, mz `'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`' : Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard : : Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't : : Connais pas! Connais pas! think : : so : : Mikhail Zeleny : : 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 : : Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 : : email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET : : : '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Apr14.085858.11068@husc3.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zelenyReferences:
<1992Apr11.130906.796@gacvx2.gac.edu> <1992Apr12.193331.11012@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Apr13.114824.1745@nic.csu.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Set theory and modal logic Message-ID: <1992Apr14.085858.11068@husc3.harvard.edu> Date: 14 Apr 92 12:58:56 GMT References: <1992Apr11.130906.796@gacvx2.gac.edu> <1992Apr12.193331.11012@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Apr13.114824.1745@nic.csu.net> Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ. Lines: 58 Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu