Modal Logic

and Its Applications,

explained using

Puzzles and Examples

Marek Perkowski
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, PSU
System Science Seminar
March 4, 2011.

From Boolean Logic to high order

predicate modal logic
High-Order Modal
logic

Modal Predicate
logic

Modal
Propositional logic
Boolean Logic
= Propositional logic

First-Order Logic =
Predicate logic

From Boolean Logic to high order

predicate modal logic

 As an illustration, consider the following proof

which establishes the theorem p (q p):

1. p
3. p/\q

4. p

5. q p

6. p (q p)

2. q
7. q

8. p q

9. q(p q)

1. We shall be concerned, at first, with alethic

modal logic, or modal logic tout court.
2. The starting point, once again, is Aristotle, who
was the first to study the relationship between
modal statements and their validity.
3. However, the great discussion it enjoyed in the
Middle Ages.
4. The official birth date of modal logic is 1921,
when Clarence Irving Lewis wrote a famous
essay on implication.

Modal logics has Roots in C.

I. Lewis

As is widely known and much celebrated, C. I. Lewis invented

modal logic.
Modal logic sprang in no small part from his disenchantment
with material implication

Material implication was accepted and indeed taken as central in Principia

by Russell and Whitehead.

In the modern propositional calculus (PC), implication is of this

sort;
hence a statement like
If the moon is composed of Jarlsberg cheese, then
Selmer is Norwegian" is symbolized by

p q;
where of course the propositional variables can vary with
personal choice.

Aristotle

St. Anselm

C.I. Lewis

Saul Kripke

Modern
Engineering
Temporal Logic
and Model
Checking

Troubles with
material
conditional
(material implication)

It is known that p q is true, by

definition of material implication, for all
possible combinations of the truth-values
of p and q, except when p is true and q is
false.

pq

One may use

this F in next
parts of proof

One may use true

consequent from
false antecedent

it is possible that both p and q are true

1. The truth-table defining may raise some doubts, especially

when we compare it with the intuitive notion of implication.

2. In order to clarify the issue, Lewis introduced the notion of strict

implication, and with it the symbol of a new logical connective:

According to Lewis
the implication

p q requires that

it is impossible that both p and q are true

or

it is necessary that p q

Just one
example

Dorothy
Edgingtons Proof
of the Existence of
God

Material
implication

I do not pray
So God exists

Let us use material

implication to analyze this
reasoning

Dorothy Edgingtons Proof of Existence

of God
If God does not exist, then it is not the case that if
I pray, my prayers will be answered
G (P A)

We use elimination of material implication twice

G ( P A)

G (P A)

De Morgan

I do not pray so we substitute P=0

G (P A) = G (0 A) = G 0

So God exists.

Other example of troubles with

material implication

Eric is quilty and Eric did not have an

accomplice

Therefore Eric is quilty

The modal operator

Lewis introduced the modal operator
1. means possible
2. in order to present his preferred sort of
implication:
3. Lewis implication is called strict implication .
not

pq

Material
implication

possible

( p q)

Strict Implication

It is not possible that m is true and s is

not true

Modal
Logic

Modal Logic: basic operators

1. We take from propositional logic all
operators, variables, axioms, proof rules,
etc.
2. We add two modal operators:
reads is necessarily true
reads is possibly true
3. Equivalence:

Modal Logic: Possible and necessary

Modal Equivalence:

ab\cd

Sentence it is possible that it will rain in afternoon is

equivalent to the sentence it is not necessary that it will not
rain in afternoon
Sentence it is possible that this Boolean function is
satisfied is equivalent to the sentence it is not necessary
that this Boolean function is not satisfied.

00 01 11 10

ab\cd

00 01 11 10

00 1

00 0

01 0

01 0

11 0

11 0

10 0

10 0

Tautology, non-satisfiability and

contingence
ab\cd

ab\cd

00 01 11 10

00 1

01 1

11 1

10 1

ab\cd

Tautology is true in
every world

00 0

01 0

11 0

10 0

00 0

01 0

11 0

10 0

ab\cd

00 01 11 10

00 01 11 10

00 01 11 10

00 1

01 1

11 1

10 1

not

Contingent is not always false and not

always true

Not satisfied is
false in every
world

Modal Logic: Possible and necessary

Another Modal Equivalence:

1. So we can use only one of the two operators,
for instance necessary
2. But it is more convenient to use two operators.
3. Next we will be using even more than two
operators, but the understanding of these two
is crucial.

Reciprocal definition and

strict implication
Both operators, that of necessity and that of possibility , can be reciprocally
defined.
If we take as primitive, we have:
p := p
that is
it is necessary that p means
it is not possible that non-p

Therefore, we can define strict implication as:

p q := (p q)

but since p q is logically equivalent to (p q), or (p q), we

have
p q := (p q)

Modal logic is different from other logics

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Modal logic is not a multiple-valued logic

Modal logic is not fuzzy logic.
Modal logic is not a probabilistic logic.
Modal logic is a symbolic logic
Algebraic models for modal logic are still a research issue
In fuzzy of MV logic operation on uncertainties creates other
uncertainties, better or worse but never certainties
7. In modal logic you can derive certainties from uncertainties
Uncertain values
1
?
?

Modal
processing

certain values
1

?
?

1
0
0

TYPES
OF
MODAL
LOGIC

TYPES OF MODAL LOGIC

Modal logic is extremely important both for its philosophical
applications and in order to clarify the terms and conditions of
arguments.

The label modal logic refers to a variety of logics:

1. alethic modal logic, dealing with statements such as

It is necessary that p,

It is possible that p,

etc.

2. epistemic modal logic, that deals with statements such as

I know that p,

I believe that p,

etc.

TYPES OF MODAL LOGIC (cont)

3. deontic modal logic, dealing with statements such as

It is compulsory that p,

It is forbidden that p,

It is permissible that p, etc

4. temporal modal logic, dealing with statements such as

It is always true that p,

It is sometimes true that p, etc.

5. ethical modal logic, dealing with statements such as

It is good that p,

It is bad that p

Syntax of
Modal Logic

Syntax of Modal Logic ( and )

Formulae in (propositional) Modal Logic ML:
The Language of ML contains the Language of
Propositional Calculus, i.e. if P is a formula in
Propositional Calculus, then P is a formula in ML.
If and are formulae in ML, then
, , , , , *
are also formulae in ML.

* Note: The operator is often later introduced and defined through .

 Remember that

Modal Logic:

,
and ( )
and

circuits
necessary

possible

Is equivalent to

( )

Is equivalent to

De Morgan

Modal Logic: circuits

Is equivalent to

Is equivalent to

1. Circuits are the same as formulas

2. But these circuits are symbolic,
values cannot be propagated, only
substitutions can be made

People who are familiar with classical logic,

Boolean Logic and circuits, automatic theorem
proving, automata and robotics can bring
substantial contributions to modal logic.

Proof Rules for

Modal Logic

Proof Rules for Modal Logic

1. Modal Generalization
A
A

2. Monotonicity of
AB
AB

3. Monotonicity of
AB
A B

An Axiom System for Prepositional Logic

(A (B C)) (A B) (A C)
A (B A)
(( A false ) false ) A
Modus Ponens
A, A -> B
B

An Axiom System for

Predicate Logic

x (A(x) B(x)) (xA(x) xB(x))

x A(x) A[t/x] provided t is free for x in A
A x A(x) provided x is not free in A
Modus Ponens
A, A B
B

Generalization
A
x A(x)

Valid and Invalid formulas in Modal

Logic
A couple of Valid Modal Formulas:
(A B ) ( A) ( B)
(A B ) (A) (B)

[](A B ) ([] A) ([] B) in brackets we can put various

modal operators
[K](A B ) ([K] A) ([K] B) for instance here we put
knowledge operator

(false) (false)
( A) (B) (A B )

Example of an invalid modal formula

( A) (A )

X's proof system as an example of

modal software
1.

There are several computer tools for proving, verifying, and

creating theorems.

2.

nuSMV, Molog, X.

3.

X's proof system ( a set of programs) for the propositional calculus

includes :
1.
2.

the Gentzen-style introduction

and elimination rules,
1.
2.
3.
4.

as well as some rules,

such as De Morgan's Laws,"
that are formally redundant,
but quite useful to have on hand.

everyone likes someone

the domain is {a; b}

a does not like b

A proof in first order logic

showing that if everyone likes
someone, the domain is {a; b},
and a does not like b, then a
likes himself.

In step 5, z is used as an
arbitrary name.
Step 13 discharges 5 since 12
depends on 5, but on no
assumption in which z is free.
In step 12, assumptions 7 and
9, corresponding to the
disjuncts of 6, are discharged
by \/ elimination.
Step 11 the principle that, in
classical logic, everything
follows from a contradiction.

a likes himself

Example of proof in predicate logic

Examples of proofs in modal logic

Example of
Knowledge Base and
reasoning in FOL

Not only logic system is important

but also the strategy of solving
1. Forward chaining
2. Backward chaining
3. Resolution

Knowledge Base: example

1. According to American Law, selling weapons to a
hostile nation is a crime
2. The state of Nono, is an enemy, it has some
missiles
3. All missiles were sold to Nono by colonel West,
who is an American

4. Prove that colonel West is a criminal

Knowledge Base:
1.

. . . Selling weapons to a hostile nation by an American is a crime:

2.

Nono . . . Has some missiles, i.e. Exists x Owns(Nono, x) ^Missile(x):

3.

Enemy(x, America) Hostile(x)

West, is an American. . .

7.

Missile(x) Weapon(x)

Enemy of America is Hostile:

6.

ForAll x Missile(x) ^ Owns(Nono, x) Sells(West, x, Nono)

Missiles are weapons:

5.

Owns(Nono, M1) ^ Missile(M1)

. . . All missiles were sold to Nono by colonel West

4.

American(x) ^ Weapon(y) ^ Sells(x, y, z) ^ Hostile(z) Criminal(x)

American(West)

State Nono, is an enemy of America.. . .

Enemy(Nono, America)

Forward Chaining: example

Forward Chaining: example

Forward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Backward Chaining: example

Resolution: example

Now, knowing classical logic and modal

logic we move to model checking

Muddy
Children
Problem

The Muddy Children Puzzle

1. n children meet their father after playing in the mud. The
father notices that k of the children have mud dots on their
foreheads.
2. Each child sees everybody elses foreheads, but not his own.
3. The father says: At least one of you has mud on his
forehead.
4. The father then says: Do any of you know that you have
mud on your forehead? If you do, raise your hand now.
5. No one raises his hand.
6. The father repeats the question, and again no one moves.
7. After exactly k repetitions, all children with muddy foreheads
raise their hands simultaneously.

Muddy Children (k=1)

Suppose k = 1
The muddy child knows the
others are clean
When the father says at least
one is muddy, he concludes
that its him

Muddy Children (k=2)

Suppose k = 2
Suppose you are muddy
After the first announcement, you see
another muddy child, so you think
perhaps hes the only muddy one.
But you note that this child did not raise
his hand, and you realize you are also
muddy.
So you raise your hand in the next round,
and so does the other muddy child

Multiple Worlds
and
The Partition Model
of Knowledge

Worlds and non-distinguishability of worlds

Example of worlds

Suppose there are two propositions p and q

There are 4 possible worlds:

w1: p q
w2: p q
w3: p q
w4: p q

W = {w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 } is the set of all worlds

Suppose the real world is w1, and that in w1 agent i

cannot distinguish between w1 and w2
We say that Ii(w1) = {w1, w2}

This means, in world w1 agent i cannot distinguish between

world w1 and world w2

Function I describes non-distinguishability of worlds

W = set of all worlds for Muddy Children with

two children
This is knowledge of child 2
Ii(w1) = {w1, w2}

w2

w1

w4

w3

Partition model when children see one another

but before father speaks

A = Partition Model of knowledge, partition of worlds in the set of

all worlds W
What is partition of worlds?
Each Ii is a partition of W for agent i
Remember: a partition chops a set into disjoint sets
Ii(w) includes all the worlds in the partition of world w

Intuition:
if the actual world is w, then Ii(w) is the set of worlds that agent i cannot
distinguish from w
i.e. all worlds in Ii(w), all possible as far as i knows

This is knowledge of child 2

Ii(w1) = {w1, w2}

w1

w2

w3

w4

The Knowledge
Operator
1. By Ki we will denote that:

agent i knows that

It describes the knowledge of an agent

What is Logical Entailment?

Let us give a definition:

entails

We say A,w |= Ki if and only ifw,

if wIi(w), then A,w |=

Intuition: in partition model A, if the actual world is

w, agent i knows if and only if is true in all
worlds he cannot distinguish from w
Actual world

w2

w3
w1

Agent I cannot
distinguish these
worlds

w1

w2

w3

Muddy
Children
Revisited
Now we have all background to illustrate solution to
Muddy Children

Example of Knowledge Operator for Muddy Children

Partitioning all possible worlds for agents in case of Two
Muddy Children

Note: in w1 we have:
K1 muddy2
K2 muddy1
K1 K2 muddy2

But we dont have:

K1 muddy1

Partition for agent 2 (what

child 2 knows)

Child 1 but not child 2

knows that child 2 is
muddy

Partition for agent 1

Knowledge
operators
Bold oval = actual world
Solid boxes = equivalence classes in I1
Dotted boxes = equivalence classes in I2

1.
2.
3.
4.

w1: muddy1 muddy2 (actual

world)
w2: muddy1 muddy2
w3: muddy1 muddy2
w4: muddy1 muddy2

Now we will consider stages of Muddy

Children after each statement from father
Modification to knowledge and partitions done by
the announcement of the father

The father says: At least one of you has mud

on his forehead.
This eliminates the world:
w4: muddy1 muddy2

1.
2.
3.
4.

w1: muddy1 muddy2 (actual

world)
w2: muddy1 muddy2
w3: muddy1 muddy2
w4: muddy1 muddy2

Muddy Children after first fathers announcement

Now, after fathers
announcement, the children
have only three options:
1. Other child is muddy
2. I am muddy
3. We are both muddy
For instance in I2 we see that
child 2 thinks as follows:
1. Either we are both muddy
2. Or he (child1) is muddy and
I (child 2) am not muddy

1. The same for Child 1

2. So each partition has more
than one world and none of
children can communicate
any decision

Bold oval = actual world

Solid boxes = equivalence classes in I1
Dotted boxes = equivalence classes in I2
1.
2.
3.
4.

w1: muddy1 muddy2 (actual world)

w2: muddy1 muddy2
w3: muddy1 muddy2
w4: muddy1 muddy2

Muddy Children after second fathers

announcement
Note: in w1 we have:
K1 muddy1
K2 muddy2
K1 K2 muddy2

1. Child 1 knows he is
muddy
2. Child 2 knows he is
muddy
3. Both children know they
are muddy

Bold oval = actual world

Solid boxes = equivalence classes in I1
Dotted boxes = equivalence classes in I2
1.
2.
3.
4.

w1: muddy1 muddy2 (actual

world)
w2: muddy1 muddy2
w3: muddy1 muddy2
w4: muddy1 muddy2

Muddy Children
Revisited
Again
with 3 children

In our model, we will not only draw states of logic variables in each world,
but also some relations between the worlds, as related to knowledge of each agent
(child). These are non-distinguishability relations for each agent A, B, C

Back to initial example: n = 3, k = 2

An arrow labeled A (B, C resp.) linking two states indicates that A (B, C
resp.) cannot distinguish between the states (reflexive arrows indicate
that every agent considers the actual state possible).
Initial situation:
State of C
State of B
State of A
This is a situation before
any announcement of
father

An arrow labeled A
linking two states
indicates that A cannot
distinguish between
the states
Note that at every state, each agent cannot distinguish between two states

New information (father talks) removes some worlds

with their labels on arrows

This is a situation after

first announcement of
father

ccc eliminated

Green color means that

the agent is certain
States mmc, ccm and cmc are
removed from set of worlds

Reduction of the set of worlds

This is a situation after

second announcement
of father

Reduction of the set of worlds

This is a situation after

second announcement
of father

After third announcement of father, states mmc ,

cmm and mcm are eliminated and only state mmm
becomes possible

Final Reduction of the set of worlds after third

announcement of father

This is a situation after

third announcement of
father

only state mmm

becomes possible

What are different worlds and how to go from world to world?

Father tells at least

one of you is
muddy

World before father tells anything

World after first fathers announcement

Father tells second
time at least one
of you is muddy

Father tells third

time at least one
of you is muddy

World after third fathers

announcement

World after second fathers

announcement

K1 muddy1
Child 1 shouts
I am muddy

Muddy 1

If one child muddy

K2 muddy2
Muddy 2

Child 2 shouts
I am muddy

Muddy 3

K3 muddy3

Karnaugh Map
Before father tells that at
least one child is muddy

ab\c

00

If none

If one

01

If one

If two

11

If two

If
three

10

If one

If two

If one child would be

muddy

No single
Child shouted

Child 3 shouts
I am muddy

exor

Child 1 shouts
I am muddy

exor

Child 2 shouts
I am muddy

exor

Child 3 shouts
I am muddy

If two children muddy

No two Children
shouted

Multi-level Boolean Circuit

model for 3 Muddy Children

Three Children
shouted

Variants of Muddy Children

1. We need to know time interval, expected for
everyone to respond
This leads to temporal logic

2. We need mutual communication between

agents
This leads to dynamic logic, public announcement
logic or other types of logic

Kripke and
Semantics of
Modal Logic

Modal Logic: Semantics

Semantics is given in terms of Kripke
Structures (also known as possible
worlds structures)
Due to American logician Saul Kripke,
City University of NY
A Kripke Structure is (W, R)
W is a set of possible worlds
R : W W is an binary accessibility
relation over W
This relation tells us how worlds are
accessed from other worlds

Saul Kripke
He was called the
greatest philosopher of
the 20st century

1. We already introduced two close to one another

ways of representing such set of possible worlds.
2. There will be many more.

Kripke Semantics of Modal Logic

The universe seen as
a collection of worlds.
Truth defined in each
world.
Say U is the universe.
I.e. each w U is a
prepositional or
predicate model.

W4

W1

W2

W3

Kripke Semantics of Modal Logic

W1 satisfies X if X is
satisfied in each world
accessible from W1.

W4

W1

If W3 and W4 satisfy X.
Notation:
W1 |= X if and only if

W2
W3

W3 |= X and W4 |= X

W1 satisfies X if X is
satisfied in at least one
world accessible from W1.

Notation:
W1 |= X if and only if
W3 |= X or W4 |= X

Modal Logic:

Axiomatics of
system K

Modal Logic: Axiomatics of

system K

K for Kripke

Is there a set of minimal axioms that allows us to

derive precisely all the valid sentences?
Some well-known axioms of basic modal logic are:
1. Axiom(Classical) All propositional tautologies are
valid
2. Axiom (K) ( ( )) is valid
3. Rule (Modus Ponens) if and are valid, infer
that is valid
4. Rule (Necessitation) if is valid, infer that is
valid
These are enough, but many other
can be added for convenience

Sound and complete sets of inference

rules in Modal Logic Axiomatics
Refresher:
remember that
1. A set of inference rules (i.e. an inference procedure)
is sound if everything it concludes is true
2. A set of inference rules (i.e. an inference procedure)
is complete if it can find all true sentences

Theorem:
System K is sound and complete for the class of all
Kripke models.

Multiple Modal Operators

We can define a modal logic with n modal
operators 1, , n as follows:
1. We would have a single set of worlds W
2. n accessibility relations R1, , Rn
3. Semantics of each i is defined in terms of Ri

Powerful concept many

accessibility relations

Axiomatic
theory of the
knowledge logic
(epistemic logic)

Axiomatic theory of the knowledge logic

Objective: Come up with a sound and

complete axiom system for the partition
model of knowledge.
Note: This corresponds to a more restricted
set of models than the set of all Kripke
models.
In other words, we will need more axioms.

Axiomatic theory of the knowledge logic

Ki means agent i knows that
1. The modal operator i becomes Ki
2. Worlds accessible from w according to Ri are those
indistinguishable to agent i from world w
3. Ki means agent i knows that
4. Start with the simple axioms:
1. (Classical) All propositional tautologies are valid
2. (Modus Ponens) if and are valid, infer that is
valid
Now we are defining a logic of knowledge
on top of standard modal logic.

Axiomatic theory of the knowledge logic

(More Axioms)
(K) From (Ki Ki( )) infer Ki
Means that the agent knows all the consequences
of his knowledge
This is also known as logical omniscience

(Necessitation) From , infer that Ki

Means that the agent knows all propositional
tautologies
In a sense, these agents are inhuman, they are more like
God, which started this whole area of research
So far, axioms were like in alethic modal logic

Remember,
we introduced
the rule K
This defines
some logic

Axiomatic theory of the knowledge logic

(Now we add More Axioms)
Axiom (D) Ki ( )

This is called the axiom of consistency

Axiom (T) (Ki )

This is called the veridity axiom

Means that if an agent knows something than is
true.
Corresponds to assuming that accessability
relation Ri is reflexive
Axiom D means that nobody can
know nonsense, inconsistency

Remember symbols D and T of

axioms, each of them will be used to
create some type of logic

Refresher: what is Euclidean

relation?
Binary relation R over domain Y is Euclidian
if and only if
y, y, y Y, if (y,y) R and (y,y) R then (y,y) R

(y,y) R and (y,y) R then (y,y) R

R

y
R

y
R

y
R

Axiomatic theory of the knowledge logic

(Now we add More Axioms)
Axiom (4) Ki Ki Ki
Called the positive introspection axiom
Corresponds to assuming that Ri is transitive

Axiom (5) Ki Ki Ki
Called the negative introspection axiom
Corresponds to assuming that Ri is Euclidian

Remember symbols 4 and 5 of

axioms, each of them will be used to
create some type of logic

Overview of Axioms of Epistemic Logic

Table. Axioms and corresponding constraints on the accessibility relation.

1.
2.

Proposition: a binary relation is an equivalence relation if and only if it is reflexive,

transitive and Euclidean
Proposition: a binary relation is an equivalence relation if and only if it is reflexive,
transitive and symmetric

Some modal logic systems take only a subset of this set. All general , problem independent
theorems can be derived from only these axioms and some additional, problem specific axioms
describing the given puzzle, game or research problem.

Logics of
knowledge and
belief

Logics of knowledge and belief

FOL augmented with two modal operators
K(a,) - a knows
B(a,) - a believes
Associate with each agent a set of possible worlds
Mk =<W, L, R>
W - a set of worlds
L:W P() - set of formula true in a world, R A x W X W

An agent knows/believes a propositions in a given world if the

proposition holds in all worlds accessible to the agent from the
given world
B(Bill, father-of(Zeus, Cronos))
? B(Bill, father-of(Jupiter,Saturn))
referential opaque operators
The difference between B and K is given by their properties

Properties of knowledge
(A1) Distribution axiom
(A2) Knowledge axiom

K(a, ) K(a, ) K(a, )

K(a, )
- satisfied if R is reflexive

K(a, ) K(a, K(a, ))

(A3) Positive introspection axiom

- satisfied if R is transitive

(A4) Negative introspection axiom

K(a, ) K(a, K(a, ))
- satisfied if R is euclidian

We are back to
Muddy Children
1. We will formulate now a completely formal
modal (knowledge) logic, language based
formulation of Muddy Children

Two Muddy Children problem

(1) A and B know that each can see the other's forehead.
Thus, for example:
(1a) If A does not have a muddy spot, B will know that A
does not have a muddy spot
(1b) A knows (1a)
(2) A and B each know that at least one of them have a
muddy spot, and they each know that the other knows
that. In particular
(2a) A knows that B knows that either A or B has a
muddy spot
(3) B says that he does not know whether he has a muddy
spot, and A thereby knows that B does not know

Two Muddy Children problem

(1) A and B know that each can see the other's forehead. Thus, for example:
(1a) If A does not have a muddy spot, B will know that A does not have a muddy spot
(1b) A knows (1a)
(2) A and B each know that at least one of them have a muddy spot, and they each know
that the other knows that. In particular
(2a) A knows that B knows that either A or B has a muddy spot
(3) B says that he does not know whether he has a muddy spot, and A thereby knows
that B does not know
Proof
1. KA( muddy(A) KB( muddy(A))
2. KA(KB(muddy(A) muddy(B)))
3. KA(KB(muddy(B)))

(1b)
(2a)
(3)

4. muddy(A) KB(muddy(A))
5. KB(muddy(A) muddy(B))

1, A2
2, A2

A2: K(a, )

6. KB(muddy(A)) KB(muddy(B))
7. muddy(A) KB(muddy(B))

5, A1
4, 6

A1: K(a, ) K(a, ) K(a, )

8. KB(muddy(B)) muddy(A)
9. KA(muddy(A))

contrapositive of 7
3, 8, R2

1. KA( muddy(A) KB( muddy(A))

(1b)

A2: K(a, )

4. muddy(A) KB(muddy(A))

2. KA(KB(muddy(A) muddy(B)))

(2a)

5. KB(muddy(A) muddy(B))
A1: K(a, ) K(a, ) K(a, )
6. KB(muddy(A)) KB(muddy(B))
7. muddy(A) KB(muddy(B))

8. KB(muddy(B)) muddy(A)

3. KA(KB(muddy(B))) (3)

(R2) Logical omniscience

and K(a, ) infer K(a, )

9. KA(muddy(A))

Two muddy children in Epistemic Logic

Three Muddy Children

Formulation in Logic with time

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

LANGUAGE
Muddy(x) = agent X has a mud on his forehead, a1, a2, a3
Speak(x,t) = X states the color on time T
t+1 = successor of time T
0 = starting time
Know(x, p, t) = agent X knows P at time T
Know-whether(x, p, t) = agent X knows at time T whether P
holds

Axioms

W1. know-whether(x,p,t) [know(x,p,t) know(x,p,t)

definition of know-whether: X knows whether P if he either knows
P or he knows not P
W2. speak (x,p,t) know-whether(x, muddy(x), t)
a child declares the color muddy on his head iff he knows what it is

Three Muddy Children Formulation in Logic

with time (cont)
W3. x y know-whether(x, muddy(y), t )
The child can see the color on everyone elses head
W4. know-color(x, t) speak (x, t)
The children speak as soon as they figure the color out
W5. know-whether (y, speak (x, t), t+1)
Each child knows what has been spoken
W6. know(x,p,t) know(x,p,t+1)
children do not forget what they know.
W7. know(x , muddy(a1) muddy(a2) muddy(a3) , t)
The children know that at least one of them has a muddy
head
W8. If p is an instance of W1 W.8 then know(x, p, t)

 Lemma. If P is a theorem (can be inferred from 1-5, W.1 W.8 then

know(x, p, t)
Proof. Induction on length of inference (2,3, W.8)

Lemma 1A.
muddy(a2) muddy(a3) speak (a1, 0)
Proof.
1.
2.
3.
4.

From W.7, a2 knows that either a1, a2 or a3 has mud.

From W.3 and 1, a1 knows that neither a2 nor a3 has mud.
From 2 and 3, a2 knows that a1 has mud.
From W.2, a1 will speak
Similarly all cases can be proved

Analogously
Lemma 1.B. muddy(a1) muddy(a3) speak(a2,0)
Lemma 1.C. muddy(a1) muddy(a2) speak(a3,0)

And now a test

Next slide has a problem formulation of a relatively not
difficult but not trivial problem in modal logic.
Please try to solve it by yourself, not looking to my solution.

If you want, you can look to internet for examples of

theorems in modal logic that you can use in addition to
those that are in my slides. I do not know if this would help
to find a better solution but I would be interested in all
what you get.
Good luck. You can use system BK, or any other system of
modal logic from these slides.
This I give to my students ;-))

Example of proving
in Modal Logic
1. Given is system BK of modal logic with all its axioms,
theorems, and proof methods
2. Given are two axioms:
A axiom
L axiom

A Axiom: Ge Necessarily (Ge)

L Axiom: Possible (Ge)

3. Prove that Ge

Ge
Do not look to the next slide with the
solution!!!

X Necessarily(X)
1

A Axiom: Ge Necessarily (G)

Modal Logic thesis:
Necessarily(p q)
(Possible(p) Possible(q)),

X = Ge Necessarily (Ge)

Necessarily (Ge Necessarily(Ge) )

q= Necessarily(Ge)
p=Ge

2
Possible(Ge) Possible (Necessarily(Ge))
Thesis specific to BK system of modal logic:
Possible( Necessarily (p) ) p

p = Ge

Possible( Necessarily (Ge) ) Ge

4
Possible(Ge) Ge

L Axiom: Possible (Ge)

5
Here is the solution.
Do you know that you proved that
God exists?
This is a famous proof of Hartshorne,
which resurrected interest among
analytic philosophers in proofs of
Gods Existence. See next slide.

Ge

System BK of modal logic is used

Ge or God Exists?
Amazingly, when I showed the proof from last
slide to some people, they told me OK.
When I showed them the next slide, and I
claimed that the proof proves Gods existence,
they protested.
Can you explain me why?

X Necessarily(X)
1

Anselm Axiom: God_exists

AA
Necessarily (God_exists)

X = God_exists Necessarily (God_exists)

Necessarily (God_exists Necessarily(God_exists) )

Modal Logic thesis:

Necessarily(p q)
(Possible(p) Possible(q)),

q= Necessarily(God_exists)
p=God_exists

2
Possible(God_exists) Possible (Necessarily(God_exists))
Thesis specific to BK system of modal logic:
Possible( Necessarily (p) ) p

p = God_exists

Possible( Necessarily (God_exists) ) God_exists

4
Possible(God_exists) God_exists

5
This is the same proof, the same
axioms. We only give the historical
assumptions. Axiom A is from Saint
Anselm it is like if Pythagoras invents
his theorem in his head then the
theorem is true in any World. Axiom L
comes from Leibniz we can create a
consistent model of God in our head.

Leibnitz Axiom: Possible (God_Exists)

God _exists
Can we invent a puzzle
like Muddy Children with
these axioms?

System BK of modal logic is used

We will give more examples to

motivate you to modal logic using
puzzles and games

More examples to motivate

thinking about models and
modal logic.

1. Games:
1.

Policemen and bandits in Oregon

2. Law:
1.

Police rules of engagement in Oregon

3. Morality stories:
1.
2.

Narrow Bridge
Robot theatre Paradise Lost Adam,
Eve and Satan in Modal Logic

4. Robot morality
1.
2.

Military robots
Old lady helper robot

5. Hardware verification arbiters,

counters.

Research areas
and Problems in
nuSMV

1. Software verification
2. Mathematics
3. Theology:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.

Proofs of God existence

Proofs of Satan existence
Free will

Analytic Philosophy
Logic Puzzles
Logic Paradoxes
Planning of experiments

Research areas
and Problems in
nuSMV

Temporal Logic
Computational Tree
Logic

State Explosion Problem

Explosion as a
result of
interaction of
several
systems

The concept of Computation Tree

G0
G0

G1
M
S

G
G0

G1

G2

[a] model

G
G0

G1

Finite set of states; Some

[b] tree for this model
are initial states
Total transition relation:
every state has at least
G1
one next state i.e. infinite
S
paths
G2

S
M

G2

G1

G
G0

G1

There is a set of basic

environmental variables
or features (atomic
propositions)
In each state, some
atomic propositions are
true

CTL Notation

Computation Tree Logic: CTL

Every operator F, G, X, U preceded by A or E
Universal modalities:
AF p

AG p
p
p

p
...

possible

p
...

...

necessary

...

p
...

p
...

...

...

CTL, cont... Existential Modalities

Existential modalities:
EG p

EF p

p
p
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Necessary G in one world

Possible F in one world

Living in all possible worlds

1.
2.
3.
4.

Universe is a set of worlds

Each world is characterized by a set of binary properties
Each world is characterized by geometrical location.
There are rules how properties are change going from world to
world.
5. Some worlds are accessible from other worlds, depending on
constraints and geometry.
6. Guns, weapons, keys, tools, knowledge, secret words, etc. to go
from world to world.
7. Examples are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Robot world
Digital system
Computer game
Law system
Moral System

Example of
robot problemsolving

Robot in initial state

ab\cd

walls

0000

Gets a
gun

South

00 01 11 10

Energy
level

Knowledge level

Gets a
key to
the safe

0100

00

south

01

1100

11

10

1101

east
south

1001

0001

East

Dead end

Needs a gun
to go east
Needs to drop a key,
being searched by police

Robot in Labirynth to
reach safe in bank

south

0011

1111

0010

1011

west

South

1010

1111

Safe in bank
reached with key to
lock present

South

0110

Safe in bank
reached

0111

East

East

North

east

North

1000
A = has a gun for self-protection
B = power (energy)
C = knowledge
D = has a key to the safe

0101

North

South

1110

1.
2.
3.
4.

Games
Computer action
games
Robot path planning
Robot in real
environment

Example of
human life
metaphor
for robot theatre

constraints

Human is born
ab\cd

0000

goodness

power

Power+

00 01 11 10

knowledge
beauty

0100

00

Goodness +

01

1100

11

10

Beauty +

1101

Goodness-

Power-

Power-

1000
A = goodness
B = power
C = knowledge
D = beauty

1001

0101

0001

Beauty +

Knowledge+

Dead end

Beauty -

0010
Power+

Illumination
1111

Goodness+

1011

Beauty +

1010

1111

Illumination

0110
Power+

0111
Goodness+

0011

Path to God Universe

with many worlds

Knowledge+

Power-

1110

1. Robot
morality
2. Robot
theatre

EXAMPLE:
The Narrow Bridge
Universe

Can we create a world with no evil?

Most of games are based on killing enemy (chess,
checkers)
We propose a game to win by cooperation to
save lives in a Universe with limited resources.
This is my initial design of the game and you are
all welcome to extend, improve and program it.
This will be an application of CTL logic, the same
logic as used by Terrance and Lawrance and
industrial companies to verify hardware.

The Narrow Bridge Problem

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

There are two kinds of people, Meaties and Vegies.

Meaties can eat only meat, Vegies can eat only vegetables.
Meaties live in North, Vegies live in South.
There is no meat in North.
There is abundance of meat in South
There is no vegetables in South
There is abundance of vegetables in North.
To move to North Vegies have to go through narrow bridge
To move to South Meaties have to go through the same bridge.
If there are two humans in the same cell (place) on the bridge, then they must shoot. Otherwise they may
not.
If there are two humans in neighbor cells they may shoot or not.
The human (Meatie or Vegie) can either kill a human in the same place, do nothing or go to other location.
Meaties are obedient to General_Meat
Vegies are obedient to General_Vegie
If both armies do nothing, they will all die from starvation.
Some life sacrifice may be necessary to save more lives.
Worth of my soldier is worthy 1 to general, life of one enemy soldier is worth to him

What is the best strategy that will save the maximum of human lives?

Example of
solution

Four Meaties
in North

Mutual kill

start

Four Vegies
in South

Mutual kill

Meaties
undrestand
to not
attack

start

Vegie
undrestands
to not attack

start

Ultimately two Meaties

and two Vegies survive

1. As a result of some (evolved, agreed and

thought out) late agreement between
generals, two Meaties and two Vegies will
survive.
2. Can we find a scenario in which more
humans will survive?

1. Are the rules of this Universe such that the

best one can do is to sacrifice 4+4 (2+2) = 4
people?
2. Can we sacrifice less?

Self-Sacrifice
Observe that one of strategies to have the
minimum death is the general sacrifice at the
very beginning three of his soldiers.
He gives hint to the enemy that he is not
willing to fight for the sake of fighting, just to
fight as a necessity for survival.

Four Meaties
in North

Self-sacrifice

Self-sacrifice

start

Four Vegies
in South

Self-sacrifice

start

With maximum
sacrifice of Meaties a
total of five lives were
saved

Problems to solve for students

1. Program this world in nuSMV
2. If we change slightly the rules of the game or the
geometry of the universes land, can we save more
lives?
3. How to design the game so that no lives can be
saved?
4. How to design the game so that only one life will be
lost?
5. How can we design the game that only self-sacrifice
will be the best solution?

Assistive Care robots

R. Capurro: Cybernics Salon

1.
2.
3.

How much trust you need to be in arms of a strong big robot like this?
How to build this trust?
What kind morality you would expect from this robot?

using robots that monitor the health of older

people in Japan
Japan could save 2.1 trillion yen ($21 billion) of
elderly insurance payments in 2025 by using
robots that monitor the health of older
people, so they don't have to rely on human
nursing care, the foundation said in its report.

135

All these morality systems lead to

contradictions and paradoxes
1. Moral is what is not forbidden.
2. Moral is what is ordered by law in this
situation.
3. Moral is what is done in good intentions.
4. Moral is what brings good results.
5. Moral is everything when human is not
used as and object (Kant).
6. Love and do what you want.
The system should have a combinations of
morality logics and a situation recognizer

Robots and War

1. Congress: one-third of all combat vehicles to be
robots by 2015
2. Future Combat System (FCS) Development cost by
2014: $130-$250 billion

A proof of Ob(bomb) given the

knowledge-base at t2.
Only premise 3 differs.
At t1, R's knowledge-base
contained C(bomb), but a
At t2 knowledge-base contains
C(bomb).

Police and Law

Using Formal Verification and
Robotic Evolution Techniques to
Find Contradictions in Laws
Concerning Police Rules of
Engagement
Terrance Sun and Lawrence Sun

 In this project we used formal verification and robot programming

techniques to validate and find contradictions in laws that govern police
use of force.
A model of police officers and bystanders in a robot game using the
NuSMV software and development language.

Temporal logic

We inserted statutes and case law into our model to dictate the
behaviors of the actors, in the process developing a formal method of
translating laws into operational predicate modal logic clauses.
Finally, we run a process to check through the computation tree to find
contradictions.

Our final results found several contradictions, some of them obvious

enough to be used as argument in real court cases, and suggest the
legal code should be seriously cleaned up so as to prevent confusion
and uncertainty.

FROM : Terrance Sun and Lawrence Sun

1.2.1 Police Use of Force

We selected Police Rules of Engagement as our focus for this
project.

Police misuse of force, especially shootings, is a controversial topic

in the United States.

In the City of Portland, the issue is even more controversial

because of recent incidents.

The beating of James Chasse [6] and the shootings of Aaron

Campbell [7] and Jack Dale Collins [8], all mentally unstable victims,
led to calls for stricter regulation on police usage of force.

Conclusions
1. Superintelligent Agent-based systems will dramatically
change the world we live in:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

War
Social services
Police and Law
Industry
Entertainment

2. These systems will require all kinds of new logics that are all
derived from the Modal Logic of Aristotle, St. Anselm, Lewis
and Kripke.

3. Quantum logic is a modal logic too quantum systems will

reason in modal logic and humans will be not able to
understand and track their reasoning.

This will cause serious moral and intellectual issues.

appendices

Main
Concepts of
MODAL
LOGIC

Reminder on Modal Strict Implication

We introduced two modal terms such as impossible and necessary.
In order to define strict implication, that is, we need two new
symbols, and .
Given a statement p,

by p we mean It is necessary that p

and
by p we mean It is possible that p
Now we can define strict implication:
p q := (p q)

that is
it is not possible that both p and q are true

Reciprocal definitions
Both operators, that of necessity and that of possibility , can be
reciprocally defined.

If we take as primitive, we have:

p := p
that is
it is necessary that p means
it is not possible that non-p
Therefore, we can define strict implication as:
p q := (p q)
but since p q is logically equivalent to (p q), or (p q), we
have
p q := (p q)

Taking as primitive
Analogously, if we take as primitive, we have:
p := p
that is
it is possible that p means
it is not necessary that non-p
And again, from the definition of strict implication
and the above definition, we can conclude that
p q := (p q)

Square of
Opposition

Square of opposition
Following Theophrastus (IV century BC), but with
modern logic operators, we can think of a square of
opposition in modal terms:
necessary

impossible

p
p

p
p
contradictory
statements

possible

contingent

p
p

p
p

What is logical Necessity?

1. By logical necessity we do not refer

either to physical necessity (such as bodies attract according to

Newtons formula, or heated metals dilate)

nor philosophical necessity (such as an a priori reason,

independent from experience, or cogito ergo sum).

2. What we have in mind, by contrast, the kind of relationship linking

premises and conclusion in a mathematical proof, or formal
deduction:

if the deduction is correct and the premises are true, the conclusion
is true.

Necessary is true in every possible

world
1. In this sense we say that true mathematical and
logical statements are necessary.
2. In Leibnizs terms,

1. a necessary statement is true in every possible

world;
2. a possible statement is true in at least one of the
possible worlds.

CONTINGENT and POSSIBLE

According to Aristotle, p is contingent is to be
understood as p p.

Looking at the square of opposition, we can

interpret possible and contingent, on the basis
of their contradictory elements, as purely possible
and purely contingent:

purely possible
the contradictory of impossible: p

purely contingent
the contradictory of necessary: p

necessary

impossible

p
p

p
p
contradictory
statements

possible

contingent

p
p

p
p

Looking at the square of opposition, we can interpret possible and

contingent, on the basis of their contradictory elements, as purely
possible and purely contingent:

purely possible
the contradictory of impossible: p

purely contingent
the contradictory of necessary: p

CONTINGENT and POSSIBLE

By contrast, possible and contingent may be both interpreted as
what can either be or not be,
or else,
what is possible but not necessary:
bilateral contingent,
or bilateral possible:

p p

or p p

necessary

impossible

p
p

p
p

possible

contingent

Types of
modalities

NECESSITY OF THE CONSEQUENCE and

NECESSITY OF THE CONSEQUENT
The strict implication, defined as (p q), is to be
understood as the necessity to obtain the
consequence given that antecedent:
necessitas consequentiae
where the consequentia is (p q)

This must not be confused with the fact that the

consequent might be necessary:
necessitas consequentis (fallacy: p q)
where the consequens is q

NECESSITY OF THE CONSEQUENCE and

NECESSITY OF THE CONSEQUENT

Whereas by (p q)
we mean that it is logically impossible

that the antecedent is true

and the consequent false (by definition of strict
implication),
by p q

we mean that the antecedent implies the

necessity of the consequent.

Modality DE DICTO
Whenever we wish to modally characterize the
quality of a statement (dictum), we speak of
modality de dicto.
EXAMPLE: It is necessary that Socrates is rational
It is possible that Socrates is bald

Rational (Socrates)
Statement

Bald (Socrates)
Statement

Modality DE RE
By contrast, when we wish to modally characterize
the way in which a property belongs to something
(res), we speak of modality de re.
EXAMPLE: Socrates is necessarily rational

Socrates is possibly bald

Has_Property (Socrates, Rational )

How rationality belongs to Socrates

Has_Property (Socrates, Bald )

How baldness belongs to Socrates

Typical Logical Fallacy is to

confuse modality DE DICTO
and modality DE RE

The confusion between de dicto and de re

modalities is deceitful, for it leads to a logical
fallacy.
what is true de dicto is NOT always true de re,
and vice versa

Modality SENSU COMPOSITO

versus Modality SENSU DIVISO
Let us consider an example by Aristotle himself:
It is possible that he who sits walks

If f = sits, we may read it either as

( x) (f(x) f(x)) [sensu composito]

or as
( x) (f(x) (f(x))) [sensu diviso]
In the former case, the statement is false.
In the latter, the statement is true:

Modality SENSU COMPOSITO

versus Modality SENSU DIVISO
Let us consider an example by Aristotle himself:
It is possible that Socrates is bald and not bald

If f = sits, we may read it either as

( S) (bald(S) bald(S)) [sensu composito]

or as
( S) (f(S) (f(S))) [sensu diviso]
Socrates is (possibly) bald and non-bald,

In the former case, the statement is false.

In the latter, the statement is true:

Modality SENSU COMPOSITO /

Modality SENSU DIVISO

It is possible that Socrates is (bald

and non-bald), which is false.

Socrates is (possibly) bald and nonbald, which is true.

Sometimes the distinction de re/de dicto coincides

with sensu composito / sensu diviso.

Meaning of
Entailment

Meaning of Entailment
Entailment says what we
can deduce about state of
world, what is true in
them.

Part of the Definition of entailment relation :

1. M,w |= if is true in w
2. M,w |= if M,w |= and M,w |=
Given
Kripke
model
with
state w

state w

formula

If there are two formulas that are

true in some world w than a logic
AND of these formulas is also true
in this world.

Semantics of Modal Logic: Definition of Entailment

Definition of Kripke Model

Kripke
Structure

A world

A Kripke model is a pair M,w where

M = (W, R) is a Kripke structure and
w W is a world
Definition of Entailment Relation in Kripke Model

The entailment relation is defined as follows:

1.
2.
3.
4.

M,w |= if is true in w
M,w |= if M,w |= and M,w |=
M,w |= if and only if we do not have M,w |=
M,w |= if and only if w W such that
R(w,w) we have M,w |=
It is true in every word that
is accessible from world w

accessibility relation over W

Satisfiable formulas in Kripke models

for modal logic
1. In classical logic we have the concept of valid
formulas and satisfiable formulas.
2. In modal logic it is the same as in classical logic:

Any formula is valid (written |= ) if and only if

is true in all Kripke models
E.g. is valid
Any formula is satisfiable if and only if is true in
some Kripke models

3. We write M, |= if is true in all worlds of M

Relation to classical satisfiability and entailment

1. For a particular set of propositional constants P, a
Kripke model is a three-tuple <W, R, V> .
1. W is the set of worlds.

P,s

2. R is a subset of W W, which defines a directed graph

over W.

3. V maps each propositional constant to the set of worlds in

W1

P,s

W4

which it is true.

2. Conceptually, a Kripke model is a directed graph

where each node is a propositional model.
3. Given a Kripke model M = <W,R, V> , each world w
W corresponds to a propositional model:
1. it says which propositions are true in that world.
2. In each such world, satisfaction for propositional logic is
defined as usual.

4. Satisfaction is also defined at each world for and

, and this is where R is important.

5. A sentence is possibly true at a particular world

whenever the sentence is true in one of the worlds
adjacent to that world in the graph defined by R.

W2
W3
s, r

Relation to classical satisfiability and entailment

1. Satisfiability can also be defined without reference
to a particular world and is often called global
satisfiability.
2. A sentence is globally satisfied by model M =
<W,R, V> exactly when for every world w W it is
the case that |=M,w .
3. Entailment in modal logic is defined as usual:

the premises logically entail the conclusion

whenever every Kripke model that satisfies also
satisfies .
Please observe that I talk about every Kripke model and not every
world of one Kripke Model

Predicate Modal
Logic System and
examples of
axiomatics

What to do with the modal logic

axioms?
Now that we have these axioms, we can
take some of their sets , add them to
classical logic axioms and create new
modal logics.
The most used is system K45

Axiomatic theory of the partition model (back to

the partition model)
1. System KT45 exactly captures the properties
of knowledge defined in the partition model
2. System KT45 is also known as system S5
3. S5 is sound and complete for the class of all
partition models

modern version of S5 invented by Bjorssberg

1. This logic is used for automated and semi-automated:
1. proof design,
2. discovery,
3. and verification.

2. This logic was formalized and implemented in system X.

3. This tool comes from Computational Logic Technologies.
4. We now review this version of S5.

5. Since S5 subsumes the propositional calculus, we review this primitive

system as well.
6. And in addition, since in LRT* quantification over propositional variables is
allowed, we review the predicate calculus (= first-order logic) as well.

Modern Versions of the Propositional and

Predicate Calculi, and Lewis' S5
1. Presented version of S5, as well as the other proof systems
available in X, use an accounting system related to the
system described by Suppes (1957).
2. In such systems, each line in a proof is established with
respect to some set of assumptions.
1.

an Assume" inference rule, which cites no premises, is used to

justify a formulae ' with respect to the set of assumptions {}.

3. Unless otherwise specified, the formulae justified by other

inference rules have as their set of assumptions the union of
the sets of assumptions of their premises.
4. Some inference rules, e.g., conditional introduction, justify
formulae while discharging assumptions.

necessity count in modal logics T, S4

and S5
1.

The accounting approach can be applied to keep track of other

properties or attributes in a proof.

2.

Proof steps in X for modal systems keep a necessity count" which

indicates how many times necessity introduction may be applied.

3.

While assumption tracking remains the same through various proof

systems, and a formula's assumptions are determined just by its
supporting inference rule, necessity counting varies between different
modal systems (e.g., T, S4, and S5).

4.

In fact, in X, the differences between T, S4, and S5, are determined

entirely by variations in necessity counting.

5.

In X, a formula's necessity count is a non-negative integer, or inf, and

the default propagation scheme is that a formula's necessity count is
the minimum of its premises' necessity counts.

The exceptional rules for systems T,

S4, and S5

The exceptional rules are as follows:

(i) a formula justified by necessity elimination has a necessity

count one greater than its premise;
(ii) a formula justified by necessity introduction has a necessity
count is one less than its premise;
(iii) any theorem (i.e., a formula derived with no assumptions)
has an infinite necessity count.

The variations in necessity counting that produce T, S4, and

S5, are as follows:
in T, a formula has a necessity count of 0, unless any of the
conditions (i{iii) above apply;
S4 is as T, except that every necessity has an infinite necessity
count;
S5 is as S4, except that every modal formula (i.e., every necessity
and possibility) has an infinite necessity count.

A proof in the propositional calculus

(p \/ q) q from p.
Assumption 4 is
discharged by elimination in step
6;
assumption 7 by introduction in
step 7.

Figure demonstrates
Gentzen-style
introduction

p |-PC (p \/ q) q,
that is, it illustrates a proof of ( p \/ q) q from
the premise p.

Example of proof in
propositional logic

We add introduction rules and elimination rules for

the modal operators
1.

The modal proof systems add

1.
2.

introduction rules and

elimination rules
for the modal operators

2.

Since LRT* is based on S5, a more involved S5 proof is given in next

slide

3.

The proof shown therein also demonstrates the use of rules based on
machine reasoning systems that act as oracles for certain proof
systems.

4.

For instance,
1.
2.
3.

the rule PC " uses an automated theorem prover

to search for a proof in the propositional calculus
of its conclusion from its premises.

A modal proof in S5 demonstrating

that (A B) \/ (B A).
1.

We assume the negation of what we want to prove

Note the use of PC |- " and

S5 |- " which check
inferences by using
machine reasoning systems
integrated with X.
PC |- " serves as an oracle
for the propositional
calculus,
S5 |- " for S5.