We give a brief account of the modal logic of the generic multiverse, which is a bimodal logic with operators corresponding to the relations "is a forcing extension of" and "is a ground model of". The fragment of the first relation is called the modal logic of forcing and was studied by us in earlier work. The fragment of the second relation is called the modal logic of grounds and will be studied here for the first time. In addition, we discuss which combinations of modal logics are possible for the two fragments.
In our previous paper @cite_0 , we introduced the modal logic of forcing and proved that the -provably valid principles of forcing were exactly those in the modal theory known as S4.2 . The modal logic of forcing corresponds to the monomodal fragment of the modal logic discussed in , that only uses the relation @math ; or to the part of the generic multiverse that is generated only by the operation of taking forcing extensions and not ground models. In @cite_0 , we not only consider the @math -provable modal logic of forcing, but also the modal logic of forcing of particular universes @math . We show that this modal logic always lies between @math and @math and that the two extreme values are realized (for more details, cf. ,). Various other aspects of the modal logic of forcing are considered in @cite_15 @cite_7 @cite_2 @cite_9 @cite_10 @cite_11 @cite_8 @cite_12 @cite_1 . The paper @cite_4 presented at ICLA 2009 gives an overview of the status of research and creates a connection between the modal logic of forcing and set-theoretic geology'', i.e., going down from a universe to its ground models. This connection is further developed in this paper.
@cite_4 @cite_7 @cite_8 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_2 @cite_15 @cite_10 @cite_12 @cite_11
2951554701 1988045504 1585505717 1515930456 1601458080 176609766 2133045600 2096959337 2215703121 2039020269 1539708367
The modal logic of forcing arises when one considers a model of set theory in the context of all its forcing extensions, interpreting necessity as "in all forcing extensions" and possibility as "in some forcing extension". In this modal language one may easily express sweeping general forcing principles, such as the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is necessarily possible, which is valid for forcing, or the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is true, which is the maximality principle, a forcing axiom independent of but equiconsistent with ZFC (Stavi-V "a "an "anen, Hamkins). Every definable forcing class similarly gives rise to the corresponding forcing modalities, for which one considers extensions only by forcing notions in that class. In previous work, we proved that if ZFC is consistent, then the ZFC-provably valid principles of the class of all forcing are precisely the assertions of the modal theory S4.2. In this article, we prove that the provably valid principles of collapse forcing, Cohen forcing and other classes are in each case exactly S4.3; the provably valid principles of c.c.c. forcing, proper forcing, and others are each contained within S4.3 and do not contain S4.2; the provably valid principles of countably closed forcing, CH-preserving forcing and others are each exactly S4.2; and the provably valid principles of @math -preserving forcing are contained within S4.tBA. All these results arise from general structural connections we have identified between a forcing class and the modal logic of forcing to which it gives rise, including the connection between various control statements, such as buttons, switches and ratchets, and their corresponding forcing validities. These structural connections therefore support a forcing-only analysis of other diverse forcing classes. Hamkins and Lowe proved that the modal logic of forcing is S4.2. In this paper, we consider its modal companion, the intermediate logic KC and relate it to the fatal Heyting algebra H ZFC of forcing persistent sentences. This Heyting algebra is equationally generic for the class of fatal Heyting algebras. Motivated by these results, we further analyse the class of fatal Heyting algebras. This article surveys two recent developments in set theory sharing an essential second-order nature, namely, the modal logic of forcing, oriented upward from the universe of set theory to its forcing extensions; and set-theoretic geology, oriented downward from the universe to the inner models over which it arises by forcing. The research is a mixture of ideas from several parts of logic, including, of course, set theory and forcing, but also modal logic, finite combinatorics and the philosophy of mathematics, for it invites a mathematical engagement with various philosophical views on the nature of mathematical existence. The problem of deciding the satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula with respect to a background theory, also known as Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), is gaining increasing relevance in verification: representation capabilities beyond propositional logic allow for a natural modeling of real-world problems (e.g., pipeline and RTL circuits verification, proof obligations in software systems). In this paper, we focus on the case where the background theory is the combination T1∪T2 of two simpler theories. Many SMT procedures combine a boolean model enumeration with a decision procedure for T1∪T2, where conjunctions of literals can be decided by an integration schema such as Nelson-Oppen, via a structured exchange of interface formulae (e.g., equalities in the case of convex theories, disjunctions of equalities otherwise). We propose a new approach for SMT(T1∪T2), called Delayed Theory Combination, which does not require a decision procedure for T1∪T2, but only individual decision procedures for T1 and T2, which are directly integrated into the boolean model enumerator. This approach is much simpler and natural, allows each of the solvers to be implemented and optimized without taking into account the others, and it nicely encompasses the case of non-convex theories. We show the effectiveness of the approach by a thorough experimental comparison. Rewriting logic extends to concurrent systems with state changes the body of theory developed within the algebraic semantics approach. It is both a foundational tool and the kernel language of several implementation efforts (Cafe, ELAN, Maude). Tile logic extends (unconditional) rewriting logic since it takes into account state changes with side effects and synchronization. It is especially useful for defining compositional models of computation of reactive systems, coordination languages, mobile calculi, and causal and located concurrent systems. In this paper, the two logics are defined and compared using a recently developed algebraic specification methodology, membership equational logic. Given a theory T, the rewriting logic of T is the free monoidal 2-category, and the tile logic of T is the free monoidal double category, both generated by T. An extended version of monoidal 2-categories, called 2VH-categories, is also defined, able to include in an appropriate sense the structure of monoidal double categories. We show that 2VH-categories correspond to an extended version of rewriting logic, which is able to embed tile logic, and which can be implemented in the basic version of rewriting logic using suitable internal strategies. These strategies can be significantly simpler when the theory is uniform. A uniform theory is provided in the paper for CCS, and it is conjectured that uniform theories exist for most process algebras. Horn clause logic programming can be extended to include abduction with integrity constraints. In the resulting extension of logic programming, negation by failure can be simulated by making negative conditions abducible and by imposing appropriate denials and disjunctions as integrity constraints. This gives an alternative semantics for negation by failure, which generalises the stable model semantics of negation by failure. The abductive extension of logic programming extends negation by failure in three ways: (1) computation can be perfonned in alternative minimal models, (2) positive as well as negative conditions can be made abducible, and (3) other integrity constraints can also be accommodated. * This paper was written while the first author was at Imperial College. 235 Introduction The tenn "abduction" was introduced by the philosopher Charles Peirce [1931] to refer to a particular kind of hypothetical reasoning. In the simplest case, it has the fonn: From A and A fB infer B as a possible "explanation" of A. Abduction has been given prominence in Charniak and McDennot's [1985] "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence", where it has been applied to expert systems and story comprehension. Independently, several authors have developed deductive techniques to drive the generation of abductive hypotheses. Cox and Pietrzykowski [1986] construct hypotheses from the "dead ends" of linear resolution proofs. Finger and Genesereth [1985] generate "deductive solutions to design problems" using the "residue" left behind in resolution proofs. Poole, Goebel and Aleliunas [1987] also use linear resolution to generate hypotheses. All impose the restriction that hypotheses should be consistent with the "knowledge base". Abduction is a fonn of non-monotonic reasoning, because hypotheses which are consistent with one state of a knowledge base may become inconSistent when new knowledge is added. Poole [1988] argues that abduction is preferable to noh-monotonic logics for default reasoning. In this view, defaults are hypotheses fonnulated within classical logic rather than conclusions derived withln some fonn of non-monotonic logic. The similarity between abduction and default reasoning was also pointed out in [Kowalski, 1979]. In this paper we show how abduction can be integrated with logic programming, and we concentrate on the use of abduction to generalise negation by failure. Conditional Answers Compared with Abduction In the simplest case, a logic program consists of a set of Horn Clauses, which are used backward to_reduce goals to sub goals. The initial goal is solved when there are no subgollls left; The modal mu-calculus is an expressive logic that can be used to specify safety and liveness properties of concurrent systems represented as labeled transition systems (LTSs). We show that Model Checking in the Modal Mu-Calculus (MCMMC)-the problem of checking whether an LTS is a model of a formula of the propositional modal mu-calculus-is P-hard even for a very restrictive version of the problem involving the alternation-free fragment. In particular, MCMMC is P-hard even if the formula is fixed and alternation-free, and the LTS is deterministic, acyclic, and has fan-in and fan-out bounded by 2. The reduction used is from a restricted version of the circuit value problem known as Synchronous Alternating Monotone Fanout 2 Circuit Value Problem. Specifically, we exhibit NC-algorithms for two potentially useful versions of the problem, both of which involve alternation-free formulas containing a constant number of fixed point operators: 1) the LTS is a finite tree with bounded fan-out; and 2) the formula is A-free and the LTS is deterministic and over an action alphabet of bounded size. In the course of deriving our algorithm for 2), we give a parallel constant-time reduction from the alternation-free modal mu-calculus to Datalog. We also provide a polynomial-time reduction in the other direction thereby establishing an interesting link between the two formalisms. > Multi-modal versions of propositional logics S5 or S4—commonly accepted as logics of knowledge—are capable of describing static states of knowledge but they do not reflect how the knowledge changes after communications among agents. In the present paper (part of broader research on logics of knowledge and communications) we define extensions of the logic S5 which can deal with public communications. The logics have natural semantics. We prove some completeness, decidability and interpretability results and formulate a general method that solves certain kind of problems involving public communications—among them well known puzzles of Muddy Children and Mr. Sum & Mr. Product. As the paper gives a formal logical treatment of the operation of restriction of the universe of a Kripke model, it contributes also to investigations of semantics for modal logics. Whereas formal category theory is classically considered within a @math -category, in this paper a double-dimensional approach is taken. More precisely we develop such theory within the setting of hypervirtual double categories, a notion extending that of virtual double category by adding cells with nullary target. [...] After this the notion of weak' Kan extension within a hypervirtual double category is considered, together with three strengthenings. [...] The notion of yoneda embedding is then considered in a hypervirtual double category, and compared to that of a good yoneda structure on a @math -category; the latter in the sense of Street-Walters and Weber. Conditions are given ensuring that a yoneda embedding @math defines @math as the free small cocompletion of @math , in a suitable sense. In the second half we consider formal category theory in the presence of algebraic structures. In detail: to a monad @math on a hypervirtual double category @math several hypervirtual double categories @math of @math -algebras are associated, [...]. This is followed by the study of the creation of, amongst others, left Kan extensions by the forgetful functors @math . The main motivation of this paper is the description of conditions ensuring that yoneda embeddings in @math lift along these forgetful functors, as well as ensuring that such lifted algebraic yoneda embeddings again define free small cocompletions, now in @math . As a first example we apply the previous to monoidal structures on categories, hence recovering Day convolution of presheaves and Im-Kelly's result on free monoidal cocompletion, as well as obtaining a "monoidal Yoneda lemma". Abstract We present an abstract framework for default reasoning, which includes Theorist, default logic, logic programming, autoepistemic logic, non-monotonic modal logics, and certain instances of circumscription as special cases. The framework can be understood as a generalisation of Theorist. The generalisation allows any theory formulated in a monotonic logic to be extended by a defeasible set of assumptions. An assumption can be defeated (or “attacked”) if its “contrary” can be proved, possibly with the aid of other conflicting assumptions. We show that, given such a framework, the standard semantics of most logics for default reasoning can be understood as sanctioning a set of assumptions, as an extension of a given theory, if and only if the set of assumptions is conflict-free (in the sense that it does not attack itself) and it attacks every assumption not in the set. We propose a more liberal, argumentation-theoretic semantics, based upon the notion of admissible extension in logic programming. We regard a set of assumptions, in general, as admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and defends itself (by attacking) every set of assumptions which attacks it. We identify conditions for the existence of extensions and for the equivalence of different semantics. In this paper we advocate the use of multi-dimensional modal logics as a framework for knowledge representation and, in particular, for representing spatio-temporal information. We construct a two-dimensional logic capable of describing topological relationships that change over time. This logic, called PSTL (Propositional Spatio-Temporal Logic) is the Cartesian product of the well-known temporal logic PTL and the modal logic S4u, which is the Lewis system S4 augmented with the universal modality. Although it is an open problem whether the full PSTL is decidable, we show that it contains decidable fragments into which various temporal extensions (both point-based and interval based) of the spatial logic RCC-8 can be embedded. We consider known decidability and complexity results that are relevant to computation with multi-dimensional formalisms and discuss possible directions for further research.