Validity in intensional languages: A new approach (Q2266709): Difference between revisions
From MaRDI portal
Changed an Item |
Set OpenAlex properties. |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Property / MaRDI profile type | |||
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI publication profile / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Property / full work available at URL | |||
Property / full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093870758 / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Property / OpenAlex ID | |||
Property / OpenAlex ID: W2031585823 / rank | |||
Normal rank |
Latest revision as of 03:29, 20 March 2024
scientific article
Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
---|---|---|---|
English | Validity in intensional languages: A new approach |
scientific article |
Statements
Validity in intensional languages: A new approach (English)
0 references
1985
0 references
The standard (Kripke) definition of validity for modal logic is insufficiently motivated: there is no reason to use more than one set of possible worlds. But if there is only one frame, which one? The authors state broad requirements for such a frame, then define \(validity_ 1\) (opposed to \(validity_ 2\), which is Kripke's validity), and construct five systems of modal logic (two of them with individuals and quantifiers) that they study partially. - Reviewer's comments. While the starting point seems interesting, the technical development is less satisfactory. Particularly: (i) the authors do not signal that their rule ''(4)'' (p. 19), for the truth of modal formulas in system PL, is not standard, that being the cause of the difference between PL and S5 (compare system PA, with the standard rule (4'), which is isomorphic to S5); (ii) no mention is made of the Makinson canonical model, which uses only one well defined set of possible worlds.
0 references
intensional logic
0 references
analytic necessity
0 references
validity
0 references
modal logic
0 references