Kripke Models Research Articles

Constructions of classical models by means of Kripke models (survey)

It is demonstrated how Kripke models for intuitionistic predicate logic can be applied in order to prove classical theorems. As examples proofs of the independence of the axiom of constructibility, of the omitting types theorem and of Shelah's ultrapower theorem are sketched.

Evaluation of Peirce's axiom on intermediate Kripke models and its application

Evaluation of Peirce's axiom on intermediate Kripke models and its application

A type-free Gödel interpretation

In 1930, A. Heyting first specified a formal system for part of intuitionistic mathematics. Although his rules were presumably motivated by the “intended interpretation” or meaning of the logical symbols, over the years a number of other possible interpretations have been discovered for which the rules are also valid. In particular, one might mention the realizablity interpretation of Kleene, the (Dialectica) interpretation of Gödel, and various semantic interpretations, such as Kripke models. (Each of these has several variants or close relatives.) Each such interpretation can be regarded as defining precisely a certain “notion of constructivity”, the study of which may illuminate the still rather vague notions which underlie the intended interpretation; or, if one doubts that there is a single interpretation “intended” by all constructivist mathematicians, the study of precisely defined interpretations may help to delineate and distinguish the possibilities.In the last few years, Heyting's systems have been vastly extended, in order to encompass the large and growing body of constructive mathematics. Several kinds of new systems have been put forward and studied. The present author has extended the various realizability interpretations to several of these systems [B1], [B2] and drawn a number of interesting applications. The mathematical content of the present paper is an interpretation in the style of Godel's Dialectica interpretation, but applicable to the new systems put forward by Feferman [Fl]. The original motivation for this work was to obtain certain metamathematical applications: roughly speaking, Markov's rule and its variants.

Two-dimensional modal logic

Prepositional logics with many modalites, characterized by “two-dimensional” Kripke models, are investigated. The general problem can be formulated as follows: from two modal logics describing certain classes of Kripke modal lattices construct a logic describing all products of Kripke lattices from these classes. For a large number of cases such a logic is obtained by joining to the original logics an axiom of the form □i□jp ≡ □j□ip and ◊i□jp ⊃ □j◊jp. A special case of this problem, leading to the logic of a torus S5×S5 was solved by Segerberg [1].

First steps in intuitionistic model theory

In this paper we will do some model theory with respect to the models, defined in [7] and, as in [7], we will work again in intuitionistic metamathematics.In this paper we will only consider models M = ‹S, TM›, where S is one fixed spreadlaw for all models M, namely the universal spreadlaw. That we can restrict ourselves to this class of models is a consequence of the completeness proof, which is sketched in [7, §3].The main tools in this paper will be two model-constructions:(i) In §1 we will consider, under a certain condition C(M0, M, s), the construction of a model R(M0, M, s) from two models M0 and M with respect to the finite sequence s.(ii) In §2 we will construct from an infinite sequence M0, M1, M2, … of models a new model Σi∈INMi.Syntactic proofs of the disjunction property and the explicit definability theorem are well known.C. Smorynski [8] gave semantic proofs of these theorems with respect to Kripke models, however using classical metamathematics. In §1 we will give intuitionistically correct, semantic proofs with respect to the models, defined in [7] using Brouwer's continuity principle.Let W be the fan of all models (see [7, Theorem 2.7]) and let Γ be a countably infinite sequence of sentences.

Applications of Kripke models to Heyting-Brouwer logic

Applications of Kripke models to Heyting-Brouwer logic

Another intuitionistic completeness proof

In March 1973, W. Veldman [1] discovered that, by a slight modification of a Kripke-model, it was possible to give an intuitionistic proof of the completeness-theorem for the intuitionistic predicate calculus (IPC) with respect to modified Kripke models. The modification was the following: Let f represent absurdity, then we allow the possibility that and we agree that, for all sentences ϕ, , if . Just one modified Kripke model is constructed such that validity in implies derivability in IPC. While usually one thinks of as some subset of ⋃nNatn and of as the discrete natural ordering in ⋃nNatn, in Veldman's model , is a spread and , where Γα and Γβ are sets of sentences associated with α, resp. β, is a nondiscrete ordering.In the completeness-proofs, both for Beth and for Kripke models that we present here, we consider only models over ⋃nNatn, with the natural discrete ordering and we need validity in all models, not just in one, to get derivability in IPC. Also we have to modify the definition of a model in a somewhat different way than Veldman did. We agree that if ∨s[M⊨sf], then M⊨sϕ for each s ∈ ⋃nNatn and for each sentence ϕ.One can view a single model of the type constructed in [1] as the result of throwing together all the models of (the type constructed in) this paper into one big model, which has the somewhat strange properties mentioned above.

Another intuitionistic completeness proof

In March 1973, W. Veldman [1] discovered that, by a slight modification of a Kripke-model, it was possible to give an intuitionistic proof of the completeness-theorem for the intuitionistic predicate calculus (IPC) with respect to modified Kripke models. The modification was the following: Let f represent absurdity, then we allow the possibility that and we agree that, for all sentences ϕ, , if . Just one modified Kripke model is constructed such that validity in implies derivability in IPC. While usually one thinks of as some subset of ⋃nNatn and of as the discrete natural ordering in ⋃nNatn, in Veldman's model , is a spread and , where Γα and Γβ are sets of sentences associated with α, resp. β, is a nondiscrete ordering.In the completeness-proofs, both for Beth and for Kripke models that we present here, we consider only models over ⋃nNatn, with the natural discrete ordering and we need validity in all models, not just in one, to get derivability in IPC. Also we have to modify the definition of a model in a somewhat different way than Veldman did. We agree that if ∨s[M⊨sf], then M⊨sϕ for each s ∈ ⋃nNatn and for each sentence ϕ.One can view a single model of the type constructed in [1] as the result of throwing together all the models of (the type constructed in) this paper into one big model, which has the somewhat strange properties mentioned above.

Kripke models and the intuitionistic theory of species

Kripke models and the intuitionistic theory of species

First-order definability in modal logic

In the early days of the development of Kripke-style semantics for modal logic a great deal of effort was devoted to showing that particular axiom systems were characterised by a class of models describable by a first-order condition on a binary relation. For a time the approach seemed all encompassing, but recent work by Thomason [6] and Fine [2] has shown it to be somewhat limited—there are logics not determined by any class of Kripke models at all. In fact it now seems that modal logic is basically second-order in nature, in that any system may be analysed in terms of structures having a nominated class of second-order individuals (subsets) that serve as interpretations of propositional variables (cf. [7]). The question has thus arisen as to how much of modal logic can be handled in a first-order way, and precisely which modal sentences are determined by first-order conditions on their models. In this paper we present a model-theoretic characterisation of this class of sentences, and show that it does not include the much discussed LMp → MLp.Definition 1. A modal frame ℱ = 〈W, R〉 consists of a set W on which a binary relation R is defined. A valuation V on ℱ is a function that associates with each propositional variable p a subset V(p) of W (the set of points at which p is “true”).

On models with variable universe

In this paper some parts of the model theory for logics based on generalised Kripke semantics are developed. Lowenheim-Skolem theorems and some applications of ultraproduct constructions for generalised Kripke models with variable universe are investigated using similar theorems of the model theory for classical logic. The results are generalizations of the theorems of [4].

Implicational formulas in intuitionistic logic

In [1] Diego showed that there are only finitely many nonequivalent formulas in n variables in the positive implicational propositional calculus P. He also gave a recursive construction of the corresponding algebra of formulas, the free Hilbert algebra In on n free generators. In the present paper we give an alternative proof of the finiteness of In, and another construction of free Hilbert algebras, yielding a normal form for implicational formulas. The main new result is that In is built up from n copies of a finite Boolean algebra. The proofs use Kripke models [2] rather than the algebraic techniques of [1].Let V be a finite set of propositional variables, and let F(V) be the set of all formulas built up from V ⋃ {t} using → alone. The algebra defined on the equivalence classes , by settingis a free Hilbert algebra I(V) on the free generators . A set T ⊆ F(V) is a theory if ⊦pA implies A ∈ T, and T is closed under modus ponens. For T a theory, T[A] is the theory {B ∣ A → B ∈ T}. A theory T is p-prime, where p ∈ V, if p ∉ T and, for any A ∈ F(V), A ∈ T or A → p ∈ T. A theory is prime if it is p-prime for some p. Pp(V) denotes the set of p-prime theories in F(V), P(V) the set of prime theories. T ∈ P(V) is minimal if there is no theory in P(V) strictly contained in T. Where X = {A1, …, An} is a finite set of formulas, let X → B be A1 →····→·An → B (ϕ → B is B). A formula A is a p-formula if p is the right-most variable occurring in A, i.e. if A is of the form X → p.

Kripke semantics for modal systems including S4.3

We present, in terms of Kripke models, the characteristics of all the known extensions of the modal system S4.3. Such a semantic description makes it possible to give a complete picture of the whole class of systems extending S4.3. We obtain answers to some unsolved problems.

Formally defined operations in Kripke models.

Formally defined operations in Kripke models.

Elementary intuitionistic theories

The present paper concerns itself primarily with the decision problem for formal elementary intuitionistic theories and the method is primarily model-theoretic. The chief tool is the Kripke model for which the reader may find sufficient background in Fitting's book Intuitionistic logic model theory and forcing (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969). Our notation is basically that of Fitting, the differences being to favor more standard notations in various places.The author owes a great debt to many people and would particularly like to thank S. Feferman, D. Gabbay, W. Howard, G. Kreisel, G. Mints, and R. Statman for their valuable assistance.The method of elimination of quantifiers, which has long since proven its use in classical logic, has also been applied to intuitionistic theories (i) to demonstrate decidability ([9], [15], [17]), (ii) to prove the coincidence of an intuitionistic theory with its classical extension ([9], [17]), and (iii), as we will see below, to establish relations between an intuitionistic theory and its classical extension. The most general of these results is to be obtained from the method of Lifshits' quantifier elimination for the intuitionistic theory of decidable equality.Since the details of Lifshits' proof have not been published, and since the proof yields a more general result than that stated in his abstract [15], we include the proof and several corollaries.

Decidability of some intuitionistic predicate theories

Suppose T is a first order intuitionistic theory (more precisely, a theory of Heyting's predicate calculus, e.g., abelian groups, one unary function, dense linear order, etc.) presented to us by a set of axioms (denoted also by) T.Question. Is T decidable?One knows that if the classical counterpart of T (i.e., take the same axioms but with the classical predicate calculus as the underlying logic) is not decidable, then T cannot be decidable. The problem remains for theories whose classical counterpart is decidable. In [8], sufficient conditions for undecidability were given, and several intuitionistic theories such as abelian groups and unary functions (both with decidable equality) were shown to be undecidable. In this note we show decidability results (see Theorems 1 and 2 below), and compare these results with the undecidability results previously obtained. The method we use is the reduction-method, described fully in [12] and widely applied in [3], which is applied here roughly as follows:Let T be a given theory of Heyting's predicate calculus. We know that Heyting's predicate calculus is complete for the Kripke-model type of semantics. We choose a class M of Kripke models for which T is complete, i.e., all axioms of T are valid in any model of the class and whenever φ is not a theorem of T, φ is false in some model of M.

Sufficient conditions for the undecidability of intuitionistic theories with applications

Let Δ be a set of axioms of a theory Tc(Δ) of classical predicate calculus (CPC); Δ may also be considered as a set of axioms of a theory TH(Δ) of Heyting's predicate calculus (HPC). Our aim is to investigate the decision problem of TH(Δ) in HPC for various known theories Δ of CPC.Theorem I(a) of §1 states that if Δ is a finitely axiomatizable and undecidable theory of CPC then TH(Δ) is undecidable in HPC. Furthermore, the relations between theorems of HPC are more complicated and so two CPC-equivalent axiomatizations of the same theory may give rise to two different HPC theories, in fact, one decidable and the other not.Semantically, the Kripke models (for which HPC is complete) are partially ordered families of classical models. Thus a formula expresses a property of a family of classical models (i.e. of a Kripke model). A theory Θ expresses a set of such properties. It may happen that a class of Kripke models defined by a set of formulas Θ is also definable in CPC (in a possibly richer language) by a CPC-theory Θ′! This establishes a connection between the decision problem of Θ in HPC and that of Θ′ in CPC. In particular if Θ′ is undecidable, so is Θ. Theorems II and III of §1 give sufficient conditions on Θ to be such that the corresponding Θ′ is undecidable. Θ′ is shown undecidable by interpreting the CPC theory of a reflexive and symmetric relation in Θ′.

Some Results on the Intermediate Logics

In ClOj, we developed the method of Kripke models and gave some applications of it to the study of the intermediate logics. We found that the use of Kripke models is very efficient, since in many cases the algebraic structure of Kripke models reflects well the properties of the logics characterized by them. In dll]], we proved that a certain relation holds between the logics characterized by some Kripke models and the logics having the finite model property. As we stated in the correction at the end of CllH, the original proof contained an error. So, we emphasize here that the following problem remains open: Has any intermediate logic a characteristic Kripke model? In this paper, we will proceed in the same direction as Hi OH anc* Ell]. At present, we have at hand many particular intermediate logics. But we have very little knowledge about the general properties common to many logics. For instance, though many logics having the disjunction property have been known, we don't know what conditions make a logic have the disjunction property. We think that the central aim of the study of intermedate logics is to construct the theory about the general properties of them. The notion of the slice introduced by Hosoi Q4] gave us the first clue to our purpose. We will introduce in §1 other classifications of intermediate logics. In §2, we will characterize them by Kripke models, just as the slice was characterized by the height of Kripke models in [110]. In §3, we will investigate about the disjunction property in connection with these classifications. We assume familiarity with the terminologies and the notions of ^10]. In ^10], we consider a

Applications of trees to intermediate logics

We investigate extensions of Heyting's predicate calculus (HPC). We relate geometric properties of the trees of Kripke models (see [2]) with schemas of HPC and thus obtain completeness theorems for several intermediate logics defined by schemas. Our main results are:(a) ∼(∀x ∼ ∼ϕ(x) Λ ∼∀xϕ(x)) is characterized by all Kripke models with trees T with the property that every point is below an endpoint. (From this we shall deduce Glivenko type theorems for this extension.)(b) The fragment of HPC without ∨ and ∃ is complete for all Kripke models with constant domains.We assume familiarity with Kripke [2]. Our notation is different from his since we want to stress properties of the trees. A Kripke model will be denoted by (Aα, ≤ 0), α ∈ T where (T, ≤, 0) is the tree with the least member 0 ∈ T and Aα, α ∈ T, is the model standing at the node α. The truth value at α of a formula ϕ(a1 … an) under the indicated assignment at α is denoted by [ϕ(a1 … an)]α.A Kripke model is said to be of constant domains if all the models Aα, α ∈ T, have the same domain.

A logic stronger than intuitionism

S. A. Kripke has given [6] a very simple notion of model for intuitionistic predicate logic. Kripke's models consist of a quasi-ordering (C, ≤) and a function ψ which assigns to every c ∈ C a model of classical logic such that, if c ≤ c′, ψ(c′) is greater or equal to ψ(c). Grzegorczyk [3] described a class of models which is still simpler: he takes, for every ψ(c), the same universe. Grzegorczyk's semantics is not adequate for intuitionistic logic, since the formulawhere х is not free in α. holds in his models but is not intuitionistically provable. It is a conjecture of D. Klemke that intuitionistic predicate calculus, strengthened by the axiom scheme (D), is correct and complete with respect to Grzegorczyk's semantics. This has been proved independently by D. Klemke [5] by a Henkinlike method and me; another proof has been given by D. Gabbay [1]. Our proof uses lattice-theoretical methods.