Modal+Logic+I (1) Color (Loc+5th+Chapter)

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering
07Modal Logic
CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems
Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor
October 1, 2009
Generated on Thursday 1st October, 2009, 12:55
07Modal Logic
07Modal Logic
07Modal Logic
Necessity
You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.
07Modal Logic
Necessity

Maybe the cook did it with a knife?
07Modal Logic
Necessity

Maybe the cook did it with a knife? Maybe the maid did it with a pistol?
07Modal Logic
Necessity

But: The victim Ms Smith made the call before she was killed. is necessarily true.
07Modal Logic
Necessity

But: The victim Ms Smith made the call before she was killed. is necessarily true. Necessarily means in all possible scenarios (worlds) under consideration.
07Modal Logic
Notions of Truth
Often, it is not enough to distinguish between true and false.
07Modal Logic
Notions of Truth
Often, it is not enough to distinguish between true and false. We need to consider modalities if truth, such as:
necessity (in all possible scenarios) morality/law (in acceptable/legal scenarios) time (forever in the future)
07Modal Logic
10
Notions of Truth
Often, it is not enough to distinguish between true and false. We need to consider modalities if truth, such as:
necessity (in all possible scenarios) morality/law (in acceptable/legal scenarios) time (forever in the future)
Modal logic constructs a framework using which modalities can be formalized and reasoning methods can be established.
07Modal Logic
11
Syntax Semantics Equivalences
Motivation Basic Modal Logic Syntax Semantics Equivalences Logic Engineering
07Modal Logic
12
Syntax of Basic Modal Logic
::= | | p | () | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) | ( )
| ( ) | ()
07Modal Logic
13
Pronunciation and Examples

Pronunciation If we want to keep the meaning open, we simply say box and diamond.
07Modal Logic
14

Pronunciation If we want to keep the meaning open, we simply say box and diamond. If we want to appeal to our intuition, we may say necessarily and possibly (or forever in the future and sometime in the future)
07Modal Logic
15

Pronunciation If we want to keep the meaning open, we simply say box and diamond. If we want to appeal to our intuition, we may say necessarily and possibly (or forever in the future and sometime in the future) Examples (p (p r ))
07Modal Logic
16

Pronunciation If we want to keep the meaning open, we simply say box and diamond. If we want to appeal to our intuition, we may say necessarily and possibly (or forever in the future and sometime in the future) Examples (p (p r )) p)
17
((q r )
07Modal Logic
Kripke Models
Denition A model M of basic modal logic is specied by three things:
07Modal Logic
18
Kripke Models

1
A set W , whose elements are called worlds;
07Modal Logic
19
Kripke Models

1 2
A relation R on W , meaning R W W , called the accessibility relation;
07Modal Logic
20
Kripke Models

1 2
A relation R on W , meaning R W W , called the accessibility relation; A function L : W P(Atoms), called the labeling function.
07Modal Logic
21
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12.
07Modal Logic
22
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12. His father told him about the philosopher Descartes.
07Modal Logic
23
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12. His father told him about the philosopher Descartes. Modal logic at 17 Kripkes self-studies in philosophy and logic led him to prove a fundamental completeness theorem on modal logic at the age of 17.
07Modal Logic
24
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12. His father told him about the philosopher Descartes. Modal logic at 17 Kripkes self-studies in philosophy and logic led him to prove a fundamental completeness theorem on modal logic at the age of 17. Bachelor in Mathematics from Harvard is his only non-honorary degree
07Modal Logic
25
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12. His father told him about the philosopher Descartes. Modal logic at 17 Kripkes self-studies in philosophy and logic led him to prove a fundamental completeness theorem on modal logic at the age of 17. Bachelor in Mathematics from Harvard is his only non-honorary degree At Princeton Kripke taught philosophy from 1977 onwards.
07Modal Logic
26
Who is Kripke?
How do I know I am not dreaming? Kripke asked himself this question in 1952, at the age of 12. His father told him about the philosopher Descartes. Modal logic at 17 Kripkes self-studies in philosophy and logic led him to prove a fundamental completeness theorem on modal logic at the age of 17. Bachelor in Mathematics from Harvard is his only non-honorary degree At Princeton Kripke taught philosophy from 1977 onwards. Contributions include modal logic, naming, belief, truth, the meaning of I
07Modal Logic
27
Example
W R = {(x1 , x2 ), (x1 , x3 ), (x2 , x2 ), (x2 , x3 ), (x3 , x2 ), (x4 , x5 ), (x5 , x4 ), (x5 , x6 )} L = {(x1 , {q}), (x2 , {p, q}), (x3 , {p}), (x4 , {q}), (x5 , {}), (x6 , {p})} x2
p, q
= {x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 }
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
07Modal Logic
28
When is a formula true in a possible world?

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction:
07Modal Logic
29

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x
07Modal Logic
30

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x x
07Modal Logic
31

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x x x p iff p L(x)
07Modal Logic
32

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x x x x p iff p L(x) iff x
07Modal Logic
33

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x x x x x p iff p L(x) iff x iff x and x
07Modal Logic
34

Denition Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: x x x x x x ... p iff p L(x) iff x iff x iff x and x or x
07Modal Logic
35
Denition (continued) Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: ... x iff x , whenever x
07Modal Logic
36
Denition (continued) Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: ... x x iff x , whenever x iff x ) iff (x
07Modal Logic
37
Denition (continued) Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: ... x x x iff x , whenever x iff x ) iff (x
iff for each y W with R(x, y), we have y
07Modal Logic
38
Denition (continued) Let M = (W , R, L), x W , and a formula in basic modal logic. We dene x via structural induction: ... x x x x iff x , whenever x iff x ) . iff (x
iff there is a y W such that R(x, y) and y
iff for each y W with R(x, y), we have y
07Modal Logic
39
Example
x2
p, q
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
07Modal Logic
40
Example
x2
p, q
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
q
x1
07Modal Logic
41
Example
x2
p, q
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
q q, x1 q
x1 x1
07Modal Logic
42
Example
x2
p, q
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
q q, x1 p, x5 q q, x5 p q, x5
07Modal Logic
x1 x1 x5
(p q)
43
Example
x2
p, q
x1
q
x3
p
x4
q
x6 x5
q q, x1 p, x5 q q, x5 p q, x5 (p q)
44
x1 x1 x5 x6
holds for all , but x6
07Modal Logic
Formula Schemes
Example We said x6 holds for all , but x6
07Modal Logic
45
Formula Schemes
Notation Greek letters denote formulas, and are not propositional atoms.
07Modal Logic
46
Formula Schemes
Notation Greek letters denote formulas, and are not propositional atoms. Formula schemes Terms where Greek letters appear instead of propositional atoms are called formula schemes.
07Modal Logic
47
Entailment and Equivalence
Denition A set of formulas entails a formula of basic modal logic if, in any world x of any model M = (W , R, L), whe have x whenever x for all . We say entails and write |= .
07Modal Logic
48
Entailment and Equivalence
Denition A set of formulas entails a formula of basic modal logic if, in any world x of any model M = (W , R, L), whe have x whenever x for all . We say entails and write |= . Equivalence We write if |= and |= .
07Modal Logic
49
Some Equivalences
De Morgan rules: , .
07Modal Logic
50
Some Equivalences
De Morgan rules: , Distributivity of over : ( ) .
07Modal Logic
51
Some Equivalences
De Morgan rules: , Distributivity of over : ( ) Distributivity of over : ( ) .
07Modal Logic
52
Some Equivalences
De Morgan rules: , Distributivity of over : ( ) Distributivity of over : ( ) ,
CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems 07Modal Logic 53
Validity
Denition A formula is valid if it is true in every world of every model, i.e. iff |= holds.
07Modal Logic
54
Examples of Valid Formulas
All valid formulas of propositional logic
07Modal Logic
55
All valid formulas of propositional logic
07Modal Logic
56
All valid formulas of propositional logic ( )
07Modal Logic
57
All valid formulas of propositional logic ( )
( )
07Modal Logic
58
All valid formulas of propositional logic ( ) .
( ) Formula K :
( )
07Modal Logic
59
Valid Formulas wrt Modalities Properties of R Correspondence Theory Preview: Some Modal Logics
Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering Valid Formulas wrt Modalities Properties of R Correspondence Theory Preview: Some Modal Logics
07Modal Logic
60
A Range of Modalities
In a particular context could mean:
07Modal Logic
61
It is necessarily true that
07Modal Logic
62
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that
07Modal Logic
63
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that
07Modal Logic
64
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that
07Modal Logic
65
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that Agent Q knows that
07Modal Logic
66
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that Agent Q knows that After any execution of program P, holds.
07Modal Logic
67
It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that Agent Q knows that After any execution of program P, holds. Since , we can infer the meaning of in each context.
07Modal Logic
68
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that
07Modal Logic
69
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that
07Modal Logic
70
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that
07Modal Logic
71
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future
07Modal Logic
72
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that
07Modal Logic
73
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that
07Modal Logic
74
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that
07Modal Logic
75
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that is consistent with Qs beliefs
07Modal Logic
76
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that is consistent with Qs beliefs Agent Q knows that
07Modal Logic
77
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that is consistent with Qs beliefs Agent Q knows that For all Q knows,
07Modal Logic
78
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that is consistent with Qs beliefs Agent Q knows that For all Q knows, After any run of P, holds.
07Modal Logic
79
From the meaning of , we can conclude the meaning of , since : It is necessarily true that It is possibly true that It will always be true that Sometime in the future It ought to be that It is permitted to be that Agent Q believes that is consistent with Qs beliefs Agent Q knows that For all Q knows, After any run of P, holds. After some run of P, holds
07Modal Logic
80
Formula Schemes that hold wrt some Modalities

) ( ) (
07Modal Logic 81
It is necessary that It will always be that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that Agent Q knows that After running P,
Modalities lead to Interpretations of R

It is necessarily true that It will always be true that It ought to be that Agent Q believes that Agent Q knows that After any execution of P, holds R(x, y) y is possible world according to info at x y is a future world of x y is an acceptable world according to the information at x y could be the actual world according to Qs beliefs at x y could be the actual world according to Qs knowledge at x y is a possible resulting state after execution of P at x
07Modal Logic 82
Possible Properties of R
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x).
07Modal Logic
83
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x).
07Modal Logic
84
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y).
07Modal Logic
85
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z).
07Modal Logic
86
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z). Euclidean: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z).
07Modal Logic
87
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z). Euclidean: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z). functional: for each x there is a unique y such that R(x, y).
07Modal Logic
88
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z). Euclidean: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z). functional: for each x there is a unique y such that R(x, y). linear: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z) or y = z or R(z, y).
07Modal Logic
89
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z). Euclidean: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z). functional: for each x there is a unique y such that R(x, y). linear: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z) or y = z or R(z, y). total: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, x).
reexive: for every w W , we have R(x, x). symmetric: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) implies R(y, x). serial: for every x there is a y such that R(x, y). transitive: for every x, y, z W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, z) imply R(x, z). Euclidean: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z). functional: for each x there is a unique y such that R(x, y). linear: for every x, y, z W with R(x, y) and R(x, z), we have R(y, z) or y = z or R(z, y). total: for every x, y W , we have R(x, y) and R(y, x). equivalence: reexive, symmetric and transitive.
Example
Consider the modality in which it ought to be that .
means
07Modal Logic
92
Example
Consider the modality in which it ought to be that . Should R be reexive?
means
07Modal Logic
93
Example
Consider the modality in which it ought to be that . Should R be reexive? Should R be serial?
means
07Modal Logic
94
Necessarily true and Reexivity
Guess R is reexive if and only if
is valid.
07Modal Logic
95
Motivation
We would like to establish that some formulas hold whenever R has a particular property.
07Modal Logic
96
Motivation
We would like to establish that some formulas hold whenever R has a particular property. Ignore L, and only consider the (W , R) part of a model, called frame.
07Modal Logic
97
Motivation
We would like to establish that some formulas hold whenever R has a particular property. Ignore L, and only consider the (W , R) part of a model, called frame. Establish formula schemes based on properties of frames.
07Modal Logic
98
Reexivity and Transitivity

Theorem 1 Let F = (W , R) be a frame. The following statements are equivalent: R is reexive; F satises F satises ; p p for any atom p
07Modal Logic
99
Reexivity and Transitivity

Theorem 1 Let F = (W , R) be a frame. The following statements are equivalent: R is reexive; F satises F satises ; p p for any atom p
Theorem 2 The following statements are equivalent: R is transitive; F satises F satises p ; p for any atom p
07Modal Logic 100
Proof of Theorem 1
Let F = (W , R) be a frame. The following statements are equivalent:
1 2 3
R is reexive; F satises F satises ; p p for any atom p
07Modal Logic
101
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive.
07Modal Logic
102
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive. Let L be any labeling function; M = (W , R, L).
07Modal Logic
103
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive. Let L be any labeling function; M = (W , R, L). Need to show for any x: x
07Modal Logic
104
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive. Let L be any labeling function; M = (W , R, L). Need to show for any x: x Suppose x .
07Modal Logic
105
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive. Let L be any labeling function; M = (W , R, L). Need to show for any x: x Suppose x . Since R is reexive, we have x .
07Modal Logic
106
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
1 2: Let R be reexive. Let L be any labeling function; M = (W , R, L). Need to show for any x: x Suppose x . Since R is reexive, we have x . Using the semantics of : x
07Modal Logic
107
Proof of Theorem 1

1 2 3
07Modal Logic
108
Proof of Theorem 1

1 2 3
2 3: Just set to be p
07Modal Logic
109
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
07Modal Logic
110
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
R is reexive; F satises F satises ; p p for any atom p p p.
3 1: Suppose the frame satises
07Modal Logic
111
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
R is reexive; F satises F satises ; p p for any atom p p p.
3 1: Suppose the frame satises Take any world x from W .
07Modal Logic
112
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
3 1: Suppose the frame satises p p. Take any world x from W . Choose a labeling function L such that p L(x), but p L(y) for all y with y = x
07Modal Logic
113
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
3 1: Suppose the frame satises p p. Take any world x from W . Choose a labeling function L such that p L(x), but p L(y) for all y with y = x Proof by contradiction: Assume (x, x) R.
07Modal Logic
114
Proof of Theorem 1
1 2 3
3 1: Suppose the frame satises p p. Take any world x from W . Choose a labeling function L such that p L(x), but p L(y) for all y with y = x Proof by contradiction: Assume (x, x) R. Then we would have x p, but not x p. Contradiction!
Formula Schemes and Properties of R
name T B D 4 5
formula scheme ( )
property of R reexive symmetric serial transitive Euclidean functional linear
07Modal Logic
116
Which Formula Schemes to Choose?
Denition Let L be a set of formula schemes and {} a set of formulas of basic modal logic.
07Modal Logic
117
Denition Let L be a set of formula schemes and {} a set of formulas of basic modal logic. A set of formula schemes is said to be closed iff it contains all substitution instances of its elements.
07Modal Logic
118
Denition Let L be a set of formula schemes and {} a set of formulas of basic modal logic. A set of formula schemes is said to be closed iff it contains all substitution instances of its elements. Let Lc be the smallest closed superset of L.
07Modal Logic
119
Denition Let L be a set of formula schemes and {} a set of formulas of basic modal logic. A set of formula schemes is said to be closed iff it contains all substitution instances of its elements. entails in L iff Lc semantically entails . We say |=L . Let Lc be the smallest closed superset of L.
07Modal Logic
120
Examples of Modal Logics: K
K is the weakest modal logic, L = .
07Modal Logic
121
Examples of Modal Logics: KT45
L = {T , 4, 5}
07Modal Logic
122
Examples of Modal Logics: KT45
L = {T , 4, 5} Used for reasoning about knowledge. T: Truth: agent Q only knows true things. 4: Positive introspection: If Q knows something, he knows that he knows it. 5: Negative introspection: If Q doesnt know something, he knows that he doesnt know it.
07Modal Logic
123
Next Week
Examples of Modal Logic Natural deduction in modal logic
07Modal Logic
124

Modal+Logic+I (1) Color (Loc+5th+Chapter)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Modal+Logic+I (1) Color (Loc+5th+Chapter)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Generated on Thursday 1st October, 2009, 12:55

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

You are crime investigator and consider different suspects.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Often, it is not enough to distinguish between true and false.

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Syntax Semantics Equivalences Logic Engineering

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Syntax of Basic Modal Logic

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Pronunciation and Examples

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Pronunciation and Examples

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Pronunciation and Examples

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Pronunciation and Examples

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Denition A model M of basic modal logic is specied by three things:

CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems

Motivation Basic Modal Logic Logic Engineering

Syntax Semantics Equivalences

Denition A model M of basic modal logic is specied by three things:

A set W , whose elements are called worlds;