We prove that S4 is complete with respect to Boolean combinations of countable unions of convex subsets of the real line, thus strengthening a 1944 result of McKinsey and Tarski 45 141). We also prove that the same result holds for the bimodal system S4+S5+C, which is a strengthening of a 1999 result of Shehtman 369).

We introduce the horizontal and vertical topologies on the product of topological spaces, and study their relationship with the standard product topology. We show that the modal logic of products of topological spaces with horizontal and vertical topologies is the fusion ${\bf S4}\oplus {\bf S4}$ . We axiomatize the modal logic of products of spaces with horizontal, vertical, and standard product topologies. We prove that both of these logics are complete for the product of rational numbers ${\Bbb Q}\times {\Bbb Q}$ (...) with the appropriate topologies. (shrink)

We introduce the horizontal and vertical topologies on the product of topological spaces, and study their relationship with the standard product topology. We show that the modal logic of products of topological spaces with horizontal and vertical topologies is the fusion S4 ⊕ S4. We axiomatize the modal logic of products of spaces with horizontal, vertical, and standard product topologies.We prove that both of these logics are complete for the product of rational numbers ℚ × ℚ with the appropriate topologies.

We introduce the horizontal and vertical topologies on the product of topological spaces, and study their relationship with the standard product topology. We show that the modal logic of products of topological spaces with horizontal and vertical topologies is the fusion S4 ⊕ S4. We axiomatize the modal logic of products of spaces with horizontal, vertical, and standard product topologies.We prove that both of these logics are complete for the product of rational numbers ℚ × ℚ with the appropriate topologies.

The completeness of the modal logic S4 for all topological spaces as well as for the real line, the n-dimensional Euclidean space and the segment etc. was proved by McKinsey and Tarski in 1944. Several simplified proofs contain gaps. A new proof presented here combines the ideas published later by G. Mints and M. Aiello, J. van Benthem, G. Bezhanishvili with a further simplification. The proof strategy is to embed a finite rooted Kripke structure for S4 into a subspace of (...) the Cantor space which in turn encodes. This provides an open and continuous map from onto the topological space corresponding to. The completeness follows as S4 is complete with respect to the class of all finite rooted Kripke structures. (shrink)

The completeness of the modal logic S4 for all topological spaces as well as for the real line , the n-dimensional Euclidean space and the segment etc. was proved by McKinsey and Tarski in 1944. Several simplified proofs contain gaps. A new proof presented here combines the ideas published later by G. Mints and M. Aiello, J. van Benthem, G. Bezhanishvili with a further simplification. The proof strategy is to embed a finite rooted Kripke structure for S4 into a subspace (...) of the Cantor space which in turn encodes . This provides an open and continuous map from onto the topological space corresponding to . The completeness follows as S4 is complete with respect to the class of all finite rooted Kripke structures. (shrink)

Gives the first published adaptation of the Lindenbaum/Henkin method of maximal consistent sets for establishing the completeness of modal propositional logics with respect to the relational models of Kripke.

We prove completeness of the propositional modal logic S 4 for the measure algebra based on the Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the unit interval, [0, 1]. In recent talks, Dana Scott introduced a new measure-based semantics for the standard propositional modal language with Boolean connectives and necessity and possibility operators, and . Propositional modal formulae are assigned to Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the real interval [0, 1], modulo sets of measure zero. Equivalence classes of Lebesgue-measurable subsets form a measure algebra, , and (...) we add to this a non-trivial interior operator constructed from the frame of ‘open’ elements—elements in with an open representative. We prove completeness of the modal logic S 4 for the algebra . A corollary to the main result is that non-theorems of S 4 can be falsified at each point in a subset of the real interval [0, 1] of measure arbitrarily close to 1. A second corollary is that Intuitionistic propositional logic (IPC) is complete for the frame of open elements in. (shrink)

Dynamic topological logic provides a context for studying the confluence of the topological semantics for S4, topological dynamics, and temporal logic. The topological semantics for S4 is based on topological spaces rather than Kripke frames. In this semantics, □ is interpreted as topological interior. Thus S4 can be understood as the logic of topological spaces, and □ can be understood as a topological modality. Topological dynamics studies the asymptotic properties of continuous maps on topological spaces. Let a dynamic topological system (...) be a topological space X together with a continuous function f. f can be thought of in temporal terms, moving the points of the topological space from one moment to the next. Dynamic topological logics are the logics of dynamic topological systems, just as S4 is the logic of topological spaces. Dynamic topological logics are defined for a trimodal language with an S4-ish topological modality □ , and two temporal modalities, ○ and * , both interpreted using the continuous function f. In particular, ○ expresses f’s action on X from one moment to the next, and * expresses the asymptotic behaviour of f. (shrink)

Dynamic topological logic provides a context for studying the confluence of the topological semantics for S4, topological dynamics, and temporal logic. The topological semantics for S4 is based on topological spaces rather than Kripke frames. In this semantics, □ is interpreted as topological interior. Thus S4 can be understood as the logic of topological spaces, and □ can be understood as a topological modality. Topological dynamics studies the asymptotic properties of continuous maps on topological spaces. Let a dynamic topological system (...) be a topological space X together with a continuous function f. f can be thought of in temporal terms, moving the points of the topological space from one moment to the next. Dynamic topological logics are the logics of dynamic topological systems, just as S4 is the logic of topological spaces. Dynamic topological logics are defined for a trimodal language with an S4-ish topological modality □, and two temporal modalities, ○ and *, both interpreted using the continuous function f. In particular, ○ expresses f’s action on X from one moment to the next, and * expresses the asymptotic behaviour of f. (shrink)

The Diodorean interpretation of modality reads the operator as it is now and always will be the case that. In this paper time is modelled by the four-dimensional Minkowskian geometry that forms the basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity, with event y coming after event x just in case a signal can be sent from x to y at a speed at most that of the speed of light (so that y is in the causal future of x).It is (...) shown that the modal sentences valid in this structure are precisely the theorems of the well-known logic S4.2, and that this system axiomatises the logics of two and three dimensional spacetimes as well. (shrink)

Shehtman introduced bimodal logics of the products of Kripke frames, thereby introducing frame products of unimodal logics. Van Benthem, Bezhanishvili, ten Cate and Sarenac generalize this idea to the bimodal logics of the products of topological spaces, thereby introducing topological products of unimodal logics. In particular, they show that the topological product of S4 and S4 is S4 ⊕ S4, i.e., the fusion of S4 and S4: this logic is strictly weaker than the frame product S4 × S4. Indeed, van (...) Benthem et al show that S4 ⊕ S4 is the bimodal logic of the particular product space Q × Q, leaving open the question of whether S4 ⊕ S4 is also complete for the product space R × R. We answer this question in the negative. (shrink)