Logically Impossible Worlds

What does it mean for the laws of logic to fail? My task in this paper is to answer this question. I use the resources that Routley/Sylvan developed with his collaborators for the semantics of relevant logics to explain a world where the laws of logic fail. I claim that the non-normal worlds that Routley/Sylvan introduced are exactly such worlds. To disambiguate different kinds of impossible worlds, I call such worlds logically impossible worlds. At a logically impossible world, the laws of logic fail. In this paper, I provide a definition of logically impossible worlds. I then show that there is nothing strange about admitting such worlds

Logic of Non-Monotonic Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Temporary Knowledge Transfer)

We propose a monotonic logic of internalised non-monotonic or instant interactive proofs (LiiP) and reconstruct an existing monotonic logic of internalised monotonic or persistent interactive proofs (LiP) as a minimal conservative extension of LiiP. Instant interactive proofs effect a fragile epistemic impact in their intended communities of peer reviewers that consists in the impermanent induction of the knowledge of their proof goal by means of the knowledge of the proof with the interpreting reviewer: If my peer reviewer knew my proof then she would at least then (in that instant) know that its proof goal is true. Their impact is fragile and their induction of knowledge impermanent in the sense of being the case possibly only at the instant of learning the proof. This accounts for the important possibility of internalising proofs of statements whose truth value can vary, which, as opposed to invariant statements, cannot have persistent proofs. So instant interactive proofs effect a temporary transfer of certain propositional knowledge (knowable ephemeral facts) via the transmission of certain individual knowledge (knowable non-monotonic proofs) in distributed systems of multiple interacting agents.Comment: continuation of arXiv:1201.3667 ; published extended abstract: DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-36039-8_16 ; related to arXiv:1208.591

Synthesizing semantics for extensions of propositional logic

Given a Hilbert style specification of a propositional extension of standard propositional logic, it is shown how the basic model theoretic semantics can be obtained from the axioms by syntactic transformations. The transformations are designed in such a way that they eliminate certain derived theorems from the Hilbert axiomatization by turning them into tautologies. The following transformations are considered. Elimination of the reflexivity and transitivity of a binary consequence relation yields the basic possible worlds framework. Elimination of the congruence properties of the connectives yields weak neighbourhood semantics. Elimination of certain monotonicity properties yields a stronger neighbourhood semantics. Elimination of certain closure properties yields relational possible worlds semantics for the connectives. If propositional logic is the basis of the specification, the translated Hilbert axioms can be simplified by eliminating the formula variables with a quantifier elimination algorithm. This way we obtain the frame conditions for the semantic structures. All transformations work for arbitrary n-place connectives. The steps can be fully automated by means of PL1 theorem provers and quantifier elimination algorithms. The meta theory guarantees soundness and completeness of all transformation steps. As a by--product, translations into multi--modal logic are developed

Modal logics for reasoning about object-based component composition

Component-oriented development of software supports the adaptability and maintainability of large systems, in particular if requirements change over time and parts of a system have to be modified or replaced. The software architecture in such systems can be described by components and their composition. In order to describe larger architectures, the composition concept becomes crucial. We will present a formal framework for component composition for object-based software development. The deployment of modal logics for defining components and component composition will allow us to reason about and prove properties of components and compositions

Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories

We propose two alternatives to Xu's axiomatization of the Chellas STIT. The first one also provides an alternative axiomatization of the deliberative STIT. The second one starts from the idea that the historic necessity operator can be defined as an abbreviation of operators of agency, and can thus be eliminated from the logic of the Chellas STIT. The second axiomatization also allows us to establish that the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a STIT formula without temporal operators is NP-complete in the single-agent case, and is NEXPTIME-complete in the multiagent case, both for the deliberative and the Chellas' STIT.Comment: Submitted to the Journal of Philosophical Logic; 13 pages excluding anne

The Power of Proofs: New Algorithms for Timed Automata Model Checking (with Appendix)

This paper presents the first model-checking algorithm for an expressive modal mu-calculus over timed automata, $L^{\mathit{rel}, \mathit{af}}_{\nu,\mu}$, and reports performance results for an implementation. This mu-calculus contains extended time-modality operators and can express all of TCTL. Our algorithmic approach uses an "on-the-fly" strategy based on proof search as a means of ensuring high performance for both positive and negative answers to model-checking questions. In particular, a set of proof rules for solving model-checking problems are given and proved sound and complete; we encode our algorithm in these proof rules and model-check a property by constructing a proof (or showing none exists) using these rules. One noteworthy aspect of our technique is that we show that verification performance can be improved with \emph{derived rules}, whose correctness can be inferred from the more primitive rules on which they are based. In this paper, we give the basic proof rules underlying our method, describe derived proof rules to improve performance, and compare our implementation of this model checker to the UPPAAL tool.Comment: This is the preprint of the FORMATS 2014 paper, but this is the full version, containing the Appendix. The final publication is published from Springer, and is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-10512-3_9 on the Springer webpag