A dichotomy for some elementarily generated modal logics (Q497429): Difference between revisions

The author considers all elementary classes definable by formulas of the form \(\forall x_0\exists x_1\dots\exists x_n\bigwedge x_iR_\lambda x_j\) (where \(\bigwedge (x_iR_\lambda x_j\) is the finite conjuction of the formulas of the form \(x_iR_\lambda x_j\). The expression \(R_\lambda\) stands for any member of a sequence of binary relations on a given set \(W\) (of possible worlds). The structure constituted by the last set together with the sequence set of binary relations is a Kripke frame. Let \(S\) be any of the above formulas and \(CS\) the class of Kripke frames definable by \(S\). The author proves that the following hold simultaneously for both \(CS\) and \(S\) or does not hold at all: {\parindent=7mm \begin{itemize}\item[(1)] \(S\) is modally definable by a generalized Sahlqvist formula; \item[(2)] \(S\) is locally and modally definable; \item[(3)] if \(\operatorname{Log}(CS)\) is the set of modal formulas valid in the class \(CS\) of Kripke Frames defined by \(S\), then \(\operatorname{Log}(CS)\) is (a) axiomatizable by a generalized Salhqvist formula, (b) finitely axiomatizable, (c) axiomatizable by a set of modal formulas containing finitely many propositional variables, (d) axiomatizable by a set of canonical formulas (i.e., formulas valid in the canonical frame), (e) axiomatizable by a certain modal formula and a set of canonical formulas; and \item[(4)] the class of frames on which \(\operatorname{Log}(CS)\) is valid is elementary and the same as the class \(CS\). \end{itemize}}