In this paper we consider the normal modal logics of elementary classes defined by first-order formulas of the form \. We prove that many properties of these logics, such as finite axiomatisability, elementarity, axiomatisability by a set of canonical formulas or by a single generalised Sahlqvist formula, together with modal definability of the initial formula, either simultaneously hold or simultaneously do not hold.

Our concern is the axiomatisation problem for modal and algebraic logics that correspond to various fragments of two-variable first-order logic with counting quantifiers. In particular, we consider modal products with Diff, the propositional unimodal logic of the difference operator. We show that the two-dimensional product logic $Diff \times Diff$ is non-finitely axiomatisable, but can be axiomatised by infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. We also show that its ‘square’ version (the modal counterpart of the substitution and equality free fragment of two-variable first-order (...) logic with counting to two) is non-finitely axiomatisable over $Diff \times Diff$ , but can be axiomatised by adding infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. These are the first examples of products of finitely axiomatisable modal logics that are not finitely axiomatisable, but axiomatisable by explicit infinite sets of canonical axioms. (shrink)

This chapter presents a new semantics for inductive empirical knowledge. The epistemic agent is represented concretely as a learner who processes new inputs through time and who forms new beliefs from those inputs by means of a concrete, computable learning program. The agent’s belief state is represented hyper-intensionally as a set of time-indexed sentences. Knowledge is interpreted as avoidance of error in the limit and as having converged to true belief from the present time onward. Familiar topics are re-examined within (...) the semantics, such as inductive skepticism, the logic of discovery, Duhem’s problem, the articulation of theories by auxiliary hypotheses, the role of serendipity in scientific knowledge, Fitch’s paradox, deductive closure of knowability, whether one can know inductively that one knows inductively, whether one can know inductively that one does not know inductively, and whether expert instruction can spread common inductive knowledge—as opposed to mere, true belief—through a community of gullible pupils. (shrink)