How to prove in K $ vdash_{p rightarrow lozenge square p} (square p rightarrow lozenge p)$?
$begingroup$
Let us denote $C$ the modal system obtained by adding the axiom $ alpha rightarrow lozenge square alpha$ to the axiom $K$ and all the propositional tautologies.
As said in the title, I'm looking for a K-proof for $$ vdash_C (square p rightarrow lozenge p),$$ but also for
$$vdash_C (lozenge p rightarrow square p).$$
I know these proofs should exist since a Kripke frame verifies the formula $p rightarrow lozenge square p$ if and only if it verifies $$ (1) forall x ( exists y : (x mathrel{R} y) text{ and } (y mathrel{R} z Rightarrow z = x) ).$$
It particular $(1)$ implies that the frame is serial ( i.e. $forall x (exists y : x mathrel{R} y)$), that is $ square p rightarrow lozenge p$ is true, and that the frame is functional ( i.e. ($x mathrel{R} y text{ and } x mathrel{R} z) Rightarrow y =z$), that is $lozenge p rightarrow square p$ is true.
Thank you for any answer !
logic modal-logic kripke-models
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us denote $C$ the modal system obtained by adding the axiom $ alpha rightarrow lozenge square alpha$ to the axiom $K$ and all the propositional tautologies.
As said in the title, I'm looking for a K-proof for $$ vdash_C (square p rightarrow lozenge p),$$ but also for
$$vdash_C (lozenge p rightarrow square p).$$
I know these proofs should exist since a Kripke frame verifies the formula $p rightarrow lozenge square p$ if and only if it verifies $$ (1) forall x ( exists y : (x mathrel{R} y) text{ and } (y mathrel{R} z Rightarrow z = x) ).$$
It particular $(1)$ implies that the frame is serial ( i.e. $forall x (exists y : x mathrel{R} y)$), that is $ square p rightarrow lozenge p$ is true, and that the frame is functional ( i.e. ($x mathrel{R} y text{ and } x mathrel{R} z) Rightarrow y =z$), that is $lozenge p rightarrow square p$ is true.
Thank you for any answer !
logic modal-logic kripke-models
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us denote $C$ the modal system obtained by adding the axiom $ alpha rightarrow lozenge square alpha$ to the axiom $K$ and all the propositional tautologies.
As said in the title, I'm looking for a K-proof for $$ vdash_C (square p rightarrow lozenge p),$$ but also for
$$vdash_C (lozenge p rightarrow square p).$$
I know these proofs should exist since a Kripke frame verifies the formula $p rightarrow lozenge square p$ if and only if it verifies $$ (1) forall x ( exists y : (x mathrel{R} y) text{ and } (y mathrel{R} z Rightarrow z = x) ).$$
It particular $(1)$ implies that the frame is serial ( i.e. $forall x (exists y : x mathrel{R} y)$), that is $ square p rightarrow lozenge p$ is true, and that the frame is functional ( i.e. ($x mathrel{R} y text{ and } x mathrel{R} z) Rightarrow y =z$), that is $lozenge p rightarrow square p$ is true.
Thank you for any answer !
logic modal-logic kripke-models
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
$endgroup$
Let us denote $C$ the modal system obtained by adding the axiom $ alpha rightarrow lozenge square alpha$ to the axiom $K$ and all the propositional tautologies.
As said in the title, I'm looking for a K-proof for $$ vdash_C (square p rightarrow lozenge p),$$ but also for
$$vdash_C (lozenge p rightarrow square p).$$
I know these proofs should exist since a Kripke frame verifies the formula $p rightarrow lozenge square p$ if and only if it verifies $$ (1) forall x ( exists y : (x mathrel{R} y) text{ and } (y mathrel{R} z Rightarrow z = x) ).$$
It particular $(1)$ implies that the frame is serial ( i.e. $forall x (exists y : x mathrel{R} y)$), that is $ square p rightarrow lozenge p$ is true, and that the frame is functional ( i.e. ($x mathrel{R} y text{ and } x mathrel{R} z) Rightarrow y =z$), that is $lozenge p rightarrow square p$ is true.
Thank you for any answer !
logic modal-logic kripke-models
logic modal-logic kripke-models
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
edited Dec 14 '18 at 10:59
L.DeR
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
asked Dec 13 '18 at 15:28
L.DeRL.DeR
487
487
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
(For the first): Consider the set up where $neg p$ holds at the actual world and where no world is accessible from that world. Then the lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ... (since $Box p$ is vacuously true, and $Diamond p$ is false).
(For the second): Consider the two-world set-up where in the actual self-accessible world $neg p$, and there is one other accessible world where $p$. The lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ...
So something is amiss there? Neither is a valid K-sequent so neither is K-provable.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
|
show 8 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038153%2fhow-to-prove-in-k-vdash-p-rightarrow-lozenge-square-p-square-p-righta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
(For the first): Consider the set up where $neg p$ holds at the actual world and where no world is accessible from that world. Then the lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ... (since $Box p$ is vacuously true, and $Diamond p$ is false).
(For the second): Consider the two-world set-up where in the actual self-accessible world $neg p$, and there is one other accessible world where $p$. The lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ...
So something is amiss there? Neither is a valid K-sequent so neither is K-provable.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
(For the first): Consider the set up where $neg p$ holds at the actual world and where no world is accessible from that world. Then the lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ... (since $Box p$ is vacuously true, and $Diamond p$ is false).
(For the second): Consider the two-world set-up where in the actual self-accessible world $neg p$, and there is one other accessible world where $p$. The lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ...
So something is amiss there? Neither is a valid K-sequent so neither is K-provable.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
(For the first): Consider the set up where $neg p$ holds at the actual world and where no world is accessible from that world. Then the lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ... (since $Box p$ is vacuously true, and $Diamond p$ is false).
(For the second): Consider the two-world set-up where in the actual self-accessible world $neg p$, and there is one other accessible world where $p$. The lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ...
So something is amiss there? Neither is a valid K-sequent so neither is K-provable.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
$endgroup$
(For the first): Consider the set up where $neg p$ holds at the actual world and where no world is accessible from that world. Then the lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ... (since $Box p$ is vacuously true, and $Diamond p$ is false).
(For the second): Consider the two-world set-up where in the actual self-accessible world $neg p$, and there is one other accessible world where $p$. The lhs of your sequent evaluates as true, and the right false ...
So something is amiss there? Neither is a valid K-sequent so neither is K-provable.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
edited Dec 14 '18 at 8:50
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
answered Dec 13 '18 at 15:51
Peter SmithPeter Smith
41k342120
41k342120
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
I might be mistaken, but I think we can't deduct $p$ from $square p$ unless we are working with reflexive Kripke frames, which is not the case in general.
$endgroup$
– L.DeR
Dec 13 '18 at 16:15
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
$begingroup$
Oops, getting my K's and T's entangled!
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 16:58
2
2
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
$begingroup$
But I've given you, in each case, a K-model where the l.h. wff is true and the r.h. wff false. So (by soundness for the K proof system) the l.h. doesn't K-prove the r.h. wff. The implications aren't true.
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
2
2
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
$begingroup$
Agree on nomenclature of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics Then K is sound w.r.t. the inferences valid in every K frame, so in particular if $alpha vdash_K beta$, then given any K frame, and any valuation of the relevant atoms in that frame, if $alpha$ comes out true, so does $beta$. So it suffices to refute $alpha vdash_K beta$ to find one K frame and one valuation on that frame which makes $alpha$ true and $beta$ false. No?
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 13 '18 at 23:14
1
1
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
$begingroup$
I'd have said "Let C be the modal system you get by adding to K all axioms of the form $alpha to DiamondBoxalpha$. Then how do we show $vdash_C Box p to Diamond p$, etc." [I've plucked the label "C" out of the air -- I don't know off-hand if there is a label already in use.]
$endgroup$
– Peter Smith
Dec 14 '18 at 10:42
|
show 8 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038153%2fhow-to-prove-in-k-vdash-p-rightarrow-lozenge-square-p-square-p-righta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
