The aim of the paper is to show that W. V. O. Quine's animadversions against modal logic did not get the same attention that is considered to be the case nowadays. The community of logicians focused solely on the technical aspects of C. I. Lewis’ systems and did not take Quine's arguments and remarks seriously—or at least seriously enough to respond. In order to assess Quine's place in the history, however, his relation to Carnap is considered since their notorious break (...) was about the status of extensionality and modal logic. Since much of the works about the history of analytic philosophy is centered on the relationship of Quine and Carnap, their break about modality deserves much more attention—it also sheds some light on why should anyone wonder about Quine's early arguments against modal logic. The paper ends with some further considerations regarding the early formation of modal logic and hitherto unconsidered problematic issues. (shrink)

A century ago, Charles S. Peirce proposed a logical approach to modalities that came close to possible-worlds semantics. This paper investigates his views on modalities through his diagrammatic logic of Existential Graphs (EGs). The contribution of the gamma part of EGs to the study of modalities is examined. Some ramifications of Peirce’s remarks are presented and placed into a contemporary perspective. An appendix is included that provides a transcription with commentary of Peirce’s unpublished manuscript on modality from 1901.

A century ago, Charles S. Peirce proposed a logical approach to modalities that came close to possible-worlds semantics. This paper investigates his views on modalities through his diagrammatic logic of Existential Graphs. The contribution of the GAMMA part of EGs to the study of modalities is examined. Some ramifications of Peirce's remarks are presented and placed into a contemporary perspective. An appendix is included that provides a transcription with commentary of Peirce's unpublished manuscript on modality from 1901.

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 Supecki 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. (shrink)

An exclusive disjunction is true when exactly one of the disjuncts is true. In the case of the familiar binary exclusive disjunction, we have a formula occurring as the first disjunct and a formula occurring as the second disjunct, so, if what we have is two formula-tokens of the same formula-type—one formula occurring twice over, that is—the question arises as to whether, when that formula is true, to count the case as one in which exactly one of the disjuncts is (...) true, counting by type, or as a case in which two disjuncts are true, counting by token. The latter is the standard answer: counting by tokens. James McCawley once suggested that, when the exclusively disjunctive construction in natural language is at issue, the construction should be treated as involving a multigrade connective whose semantic treatment is sensitive to the set of disjuncts rather than the corresponding multiset. Without any commitment as to whether there actually is such a construction, and conceding that for obvious pragmatic reasons such ‘repeated disjunct’ cases would be at best highly marginal, we note that for the binary case, this requires a nonstandard answer—count by type rather than by token—to the earlier question, and thus, an idempotent exclusive disjunction connective. Section 2 explores that idea and Section 3, a further idempotent variant for which it is the propositions expressed by the disjuncts, rather than the disjuncts themselves, that get counted once only in the case of repetitions. Sections 1 and 4 respectively set the stage for these investigations and conclude the discussion. More detailed considerations of points arising from the discussion but otherwise in danger of interrupting the flow are deferred to a ‘Longer Notes’ appendix at the end. (shrink)

In an article dating back in 1992, Kosta Došen initiated a project of modal translations in substructural logics, aiming at generalising the well-known Gödel–McKinsey–Tarski translation of intuitionistic logic into S4. Došen's translation worked well for (variants of) BCI and stronger systems (BCW, BCK), but not for systems below BCI. Dropping structural rules results in logic systems without distribution. In this article, we show, via translation, that every substructural (indeed, every non-distributive) logic is a fragment of a corresponding sorted, residuated (multi) (...) modal logic. At the conceptual and philosophical level, the translation provides a classical interpretation of the meaning of the logical operators of various non-distributive propositional calculi. Technically, it allows for an effortless transfer of results, such as compactness and the Löwenheim-Skolem property and it opens up new directions for deducing properties of substructural logic systems by establishing appropriate transfer theorems. (shrink)

ABSTRACTCorrespondence and Shalqvist theories for Modal Logics rely on the simple observation that a relational structure is at the same time the basis for a model of modal logic and for a model of first-order logic with a binary predicate for the accessibility relation. If the underlying set of the frame is split into two components,, and, then frames are at the same time the basis for models of non-distributive lattice logic and of two-sorted, residuated modal logic. This suggests that (...) a reduction of the first to the latter may be possible, encoding Positive Lattice Logic as a fragment of Two-Sorted, Residuated Modal Logic. The reduction is analogous to the well-known Gödel-McKinsey-Tarski translation of Intuitionistic Logic into the S4 system of normal modal logic. In this article, we carry out this reduction in detail and we derive some properties of PLL from corresponding properties of First-Order Logic. The reduction we present is extendible to the case of lattices with operators, making use of recent results by this author on the relational representation of normal lattice expansions. (shrink)

We study a canonical modal logic introduced by Lemmon, and axiomatised by an infinite sequence of axioms generalising McKinsey’s formula. We prove that the class of all frames for this logic is not closed under elementary equivalence, and so is non-elementary. We also show that any axiomatisation of the logic involves infinitely many non-canonical formulas.

In the pioneering article and two papers, written jointly with McKinsey, Tarski developed the so-called algebraic and topological frameworks for the Intuitionistic Logic and the Lewis modal system. In this paper, we present an outline of modern systems with a topological tinge. We consider topological interpretation of basic systems GL and G of the provability logic in terms of the Cantor derivative and the Hausdorff residue.

A philosophical discussion of the intuitive meaning of the formalism of modal propositional logics.

This article traces the development of possible worlds semantics through the work of: Wittgenstein, 1913-1921; Feys, 1924; McKinsey, 1945; Carnap, 1945-1947; McKinsey, Tarski and Jónsson, 1947-1952; von Wright, 1951; Becker, 1952; Prior, 1953-1954; Montague, 1955; Meredith and Prior, 1956; Geach, 1960; Smiley, 1955-1957; Kanger, 1957; Hintikka, 1957; Guillaume, 1958; Binkley, 1958; Bayart, 1958-1959; Drake, 1959-1961; Kripke, 1958-1965.

My purpose here is purely historical. It is not an attempt to resolve the question as to whether Russell did or did not countenance nonclassical logics, and if so, which nonclassical logics, and still less to demonstrate whether he himself contributed, in any manner, to the development of nonclassical logic. Rather, I want merely to explore and insofar as possible document, whether, and to what extent, if any, Russell interacted with the various, either the various candidates or their, ideas that (...) Dejnožka and others have proposed as potentially influential in Russell’s intellectual reactions to nonclassical logic or to the philosophical concepts that might contribute to his reactions to nonclassical logics. (shrink)

Recently it has become almost the received wisdom in certain quarters that Kripke models are appropriate only for something like metaphysical modalities, and not for logical modalities. Here the line of thought leading to Kripke models, and reasons why they are no less appropriate for logical than for other modalities, are explained. It is also indicated where the fallacy in the argument leading to the contrary conclusion lies. The lessons learned are then applied to the question of the status of (...) the formula. (shrink)

Special issue: "Reflecting on the Legacy of C.I. Lewis: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Modal Logic".