35,217 research outputs found
Complete Additivity and Modal Incompleteness
In this paper, we tell a story about incompleteness in modal logic. The story
weaves together a paper of van Benthem, `Syntactic aspects of modal
incompleteness theorems,' and a longstanding open question: whether every
normal modal logic can be characterized by a class of completely additive modal
algebras, or as we call them, V-BAOs. Using a first-order reformulation of the
property of complete additivity, we prove that the modal logic that starred in
van Benthem's paper resolves the open question in the negative. In addition,
for the case of bimodal logic, we show that there is a naturally occurring
logic that is incomplete with respect to V-BAOs, namely the provability logic
GLB. We also show that even logics that are unsound with respect to such
algebras do not have to be more complex than the classical propositional
calculus. On the other hand, we observe that it is undecidable whether a
syntactically defined logic is V-complete. After these results, we generalize
the Blok Dichotomy to degrees of V-incompleteness. In the end, we return to van
Benthem's theme of syntactic aspects of modal incompleteness
Logic of Negation-Complete Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Epistemic Deciders)
We produce a decidable classical normal modal logic of internalised
negation-complete and thus disjunctive non-monotonic interactive proofs (LDiiP)
from an existing logical counterpart of non-monotonic or instant interactive
proofs (LiiP). LDiiP internalises agent-centric proof theories that are
negation-complete (maximal) and consistent (and hence strictly weaker than, for
example, Peano Arithmetic) and enjoy the disjunction property (like
Intuitionistic Logic). In other words, internalised proof theories are
ultrafilters and all internalised proof goals are definite in the sense of
being either provable or disprovable to an agent by means of disjunctive
internalised proofs (thus also called epistemic deciders). Still, LDiiP itself
is classical (monotonic, non-constructive), negation-incomplete, and does not
have the disjunction property. The price to pay for the negation completeness
of our interactive proofs is their non-monotonicity and non-communality (for
singleton agent communities only). As a normal modal logic, LDiiP enjoys a
standard Kripke-semantics, which we justify by invoking the Axiom of Choice on
LiiP's and then construct in terms of a concrete oracle-computable function.
LDiiP's agent-centric internalised notion of proof can also be viewed as a
negation-complete disjunctive explicit refinement of standard KD45-belief, and
yields a disjunctive but negation-incomplete explicit refinement of
S4-provability.Comment: Expanded Introduction. Added Footnote 4. Corrected Corollary 3 and 4.
Continuation of arXiv:1208.184
A modal logic for reasoning on consistency and completeness of regulations
In this paper, we deal with regulations that may exist in multi-agent systems in order to regulate agent behaviour and we discuss two properties of regulations, that is consistency and completeness. After defining what consistency and completeness mean, we propose a way to consistently complete incomplete regulations. In this contribution, we extend previous works and we consider that regulations are expressed in a first order modal deontic logic
How to Complete Regulations in Multi-agent Systems
In this paper, we deal with regulations that may exist in multiagent systems in order to regulate agent behaviour. More precisely, we discuss two properties of regulations, consistency and ompleteness. After defining what consistency and completeness mean, we propose a way to consistently complete incomplete regulations. This contribution considers that regulations are expressed in a first order deontic logic. We will focus on particular regulations: information exchange policies
- …