Coalgebraic Geometric Logic: Basic Theory

Using the theory of coalgebra, we introduce a uniform framework for adding modalities to the language of propositional geometric logic. Models for this logic are based on coalgebras for an endofunctor on some full subcategory of the category of topological spaces and continuous functions. We investigate derivation systems, soundness and completeness for such geometric modal logics, and we we specify a method of lifting an endofunctor on Set, accompanied by a collection of predicate liftings, to an endofunctor on the category of topological spaces, again accompanied by a collection of (open) predicate liftings. Furthermore, we compare the notions of modal equivalence, behavioural equivalence and bisimulation on the resulting class of models, and we provide a final object for the corresponding category

On the Expressive Power of Hybrid Branching-Time Logics

Hybrid branching-time logics are a powerful extension of branching-time logics like CTL, CTL^* or even the modal mu-calculus through the addition of binders, jumps and variable tests. Their expressiveness is not restricted by bisimulation-invariance anymore. Hence, they do not retain the tree model property, and the finite model property is equally lost. Their satisfiability problems are typically undecidable, their model checking problems (on finite models) are decidable with complexities ranging from polynomial to non-elementary time. In this paper we study the expressive power of such hybrid branching-time logics beyond some earlier results about their invariance under hybrid bisimulations. In particular, we aim to extend the hierarchy of non-hybrid branching-time logics CTL, CTL^+, CTL^* and the modal mu-calculus to their hybrid extensions. We show that most separation results can be transferred to the hybrid world, even though the required techniques become a bit more involved. We also present some collapse results for restricted classes of models that are especially worth investigating, namely linear, tree-shaped and finite models

The Gödel and the Splitting Translations

When the new research area of logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning emerged at the end of the 1980s, it focused notably on the study of mathematical relations between different non-monotonic formalisms, especially between the semantics of stable models and various non-monotonic modal logics. Given the many and varied embeddings of stable models into systems of modal logic, the modal interpretation of logic programming connectives and rules became the dominant view until well into the new century. Recently, modal interpretations are once again receiving attention in the context of hybrid theories that combine reasoning with non-monotonic rules and ontologies or external knowledge bases. In this talk I explain how familiar embeddings of stable models into modal logics can be seen as special cases of two translations that are very well-known in non-classical logic. They are, first, the translation used by Godel in 1933 to em- ¨ bed Heyting’s intuitionistic logic H into a modal provability logic equivalent to Lewis’s S4; second, the splitting translation, known since the mid-1970s, that allows one to embed extensions of S4 into extensions of the non-reflexive logic, K4. By composing the two translations one can obtain (Goldblatt, 1978) an adequate provability interpretation of H within the Goedel-Loeb logic GL, the system shown by Solovay (1976) to capture precisely the provability predicate of Peano Arithmetic. These two translations and their composition not only apply to monotonic logics extending H and S4, they also apply in several relevant cases to non-monotonic logics built upon such extensions, including equilibrium logic, non-monotonic S4F and autoepistemic logic. The embeddings obtained are not merely faithful and modular, they are based on fully recursive translations applicable to arbitrary logical formulas. Besides providing a uniform picture of some older results in LPNMR, the translations yield a perspective from which some new logics of belief emerge in a natural wa

Arrow update synthesis

In this contribution we present arbitrary arrow update model logic (AAUML). This is a dynamic epistemic logic or update logic. In update logics, static/basic modalities are interpreted on a given relational model whereas dynamic/update modalities induce transformations (updates) of relational models. In AAUML the update modalities formalize the execution of arrow update models, and there is also a modality for quantification over arrow update models. Arrow update models are an alternative to the well-known action models. We provide an axiomatization of AAUML. The axiomatization is a rewrite system allowing to eliminate arrow update modalities from any given formula, while preserving truth. Thus, AAUML is decidable and equally expressive as the base multi-agent modal logic. Our main result is to establish arrow update synthesis: if there is an arrow update model after which φ, we can construct (synthesize) that model from φ. We also point out some pregnant differences in update expressivity between arrow update logics, action model logics, and refinement modal logic

Epistemic logics with structured knowledge

Multi-agent Dynamic Epistemic Logic, as a suitable modal logic to reason about knowledge evolving systems, has emerged in a number of contexts and scenarios. The agents knowledge in this logic is simply characterised by valuations of propositions. This paper discusses the adoption of other richer structures to make these representations, as graphs, algebras or even epistemic models. This method of building epistemic logics over richer structures is called “Epistemisation”. On this view a parametric method to build such Epistemic Logics with Public Announcements is introduced. Moreover, a parametric notion of bisimulation is presented, and the modal invariance of the proposed logics, with respect to this relation, are proved. Some interesting application horizons opened with this construction are stated.publishe