How to combine diagrammatic logics

This paper is a submission to the contest: How to combine logics? at the World Congress and School on Universal Logic III, 2010. We claim that combining "things", whatever these things are, is made easier if these things can be seen as the objects of a category. We define the category of diagrammatic logics, so that categorical constructions can be used for combining diagrammatic logics. As an example, a combination of logics using an opfibration is presented, in order to study computational side-effects due to the evolution of the state during the execution of an imperative program

Adjunctions for exceptions

An algebraic method is used to study the semantics of exceptions in computer languages. The exceptions form a computational effect, in the sense that there is an apparent mismatch between the syntax of exceptions and their intended semantics. We solve this apparent contradiction by efining a logic for exceptions with a proof system which is close to their syntax and where their intended semantics can be seen as a model. This requires a robust framework for logics and their morphisms, which is provided by categorical tools relying on adjunctions, fractions and limit sketches.Comment: In this Version 2, minor improvements are made to Version

Changing a semantics: opportunism or courage?

The generalized models for higher-order logics introduced by Leon Henkin, and their multiple offspring over the years, have become a standard tool in many areas of logic. Even so, discussion has persisted about their technical status, and perhaps even their conceptual legitimacy. This paper gives a systematic view of generalized model techniques, discusses what they mean in mathematical and philosophical terms, and presents a few technical themes and results about their role in algebraic representation, calibrating provability, lowering complexity, understanding fixed-point logics, and achieving set-theoretic absoluteness. We also show how thinking about Henkin's approach to semantics of logical systems in this generality can yield new results, dispelling the impression of adhocness. This paper is dedicated to Leon Henkin, a deep logician who has changed the way we all work, while also being an always open, modest, and encouraging colleague and friend.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in: The life and work of Leon Henkin: Essays on his contributions (Studies in Universal Logic) eds: Manzano, M., Sain, I. and Alonso, E., 201

Explicit Evidence Systems with Common Knowledge

Justification logics are epistemic logics that explicitly include justifications for the agents' knowledge. We develop a multi-agent justification logic with evidence terms for individual agents as well as for common knowledge. We define a Kripke-style semantics that is similar to Fitting's semantics for the Logic of Proofs LP. We show the soundness, completeness, and finite model property of our multi-agent justification logic with respect to this Kripke-style semantics. We demonstrate that our logic is a conservative extension of Yavorskaya's minimal bimodal explicit evidence logic, which is a two-agent version of LP. We discuss the relationship of our logic to the multi-agent modal logic S4 with common knowledge. Finally, we give a brief analysis of the coordinated attack problem in the newly developed language of our logic

A Note on Parameterised Knowledge Operations in Temporal Logic

We consider modeling the conception of knowledge in terms of temporal logic. The study of knowledge logical operations is originated around 1962 by representation of knowledge and belief using modalities. Nowadays, it is very good established area. However, we would like to look to it from a bit another point of view, our paper models knowledge in terms of linear temporal logic with {\em past}. We consider various versions of logical knowledge operations which may be defined in this framework. Technically, semantics, language and temporal knowledge logics based on our approach are constructed. Deciding algorithms are suggested, unification in terms of this approach is commented. This paper does not offer strong new technical outputs, instead we suggest new approach to conception of knowledge (in terms of time).Comment: 10 page

Succinctness in subsystems of the spatial mu-calculus

In this paper we systematically explore questions of succinctness in modal logics employed in spatial reasoning. We show that the closure operator, despite being less expressive, is exponentially more succinct than the limit-point operator, and that the $\mu$-calculus is exponentially more succinct than the equally-expressive tangled limit operator. These results hold for any class of spaces containing at least one crowded metric space or containing all spaces based on ordinals below $\omega^\omega$, with the usual limit operator. We also show that these results continue to hold even if we enrich the less succinct language with the universal modality

A flexible framework for defeasible logics

Logics for knowledge representation suffer from over-specialization: while each logic may provide an ideal representation formalism for some problems, it is less than optimal for others. A solution to this problem is to choose from several logics and, when necessary, combine the representations. In general, such an approach results in a very difficult problem of combination. However, if we can choose the logics from a uniform framework then the problem of combining them is greatly simplified. In this paper, we develop such a framework for defeasible logics. It supports all defeasible logics that satisfy a strong negation principle. We use logic meta-programs as the basis for the framework.Comment: Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad