Elementary definability and completeness in general and positive modal logic (Q1868490)

The author considers, without any particular motivation, a negation-free `general modal propositional logic' where the modal operators \(\square\) and \(\diamondsuit\) are independent from each other and implication to the falsum does not define the classical negation. Thus, in fact, the paper deals with a fragment of the bimodal language with two independent modalities. It is strange why the author has not made that explicit from the notation, that would have avoided general confusion and would have made the paper more coherent. The paper contains rather straightforward (yet, proved in detail) and well-known results, incl. axiomatization and completeness of the basic normal logic of that fragment, as well as first-order correspondence of the Lemmon-Scott formulas and canonical completeness of the logics axiomatized with them; all that re-done again in the second part for the `positive modal propositional logic' where the falsum is omitted. A final remark: the author emphasizes on several occasions that his results do not use second-order logic or general frames. In my view this is only of very limited interest because of the weakness of the considered fragment.