MOHAMMAD NOUMAN 22CPMEA115

MODAL LOGIC NON-CLASSICAL LOGIC

TABLE OF CONTENT
1) CLASSICAL V/S NON-CLASSICAL LOGIC
2) BASIC INTRODUCTION : MODAL LOGIC
3) MODAL PROPOSITIONS EXAMPLES
4) FORMAL SEMANTICS OF MODALITIES
5) POSSIBLE WORLD and SYSTEM-K
6) TRUTH TREES FOR SYSTEM K
6.1) TRUTH TREES FOR VALID ARGUMENTS
6.2) TRUTH TREES FOR INVALID ARGUMENTS

7) SOUNDNESS AND COMPLETENESS

8) THE SYSTEMS M, B, S4, S5
9) APPLICATIONS OF MODEL LOGIC
 CLASSICAL V/S NON-
CLASSICAL LOGIC
CLASSICAL LOGIC  Classical logic, also known as traditional logic, is based on a
binary view of truth values ( 0 and 1 ): Propositions are either TRUE or FALSE.
It follows a set of well-defined rules, such as the law of excluded middle and the
principle of non-contradiction.
classical logic includes propositional logic and predicate logic.
NON-CLASSICAL LOGIC On the other hand, relax or extend some of the principles of
classical logic.
They introduce alternative truth values, different rules of inference, or different
interpretations of logical connectives.
Non classical logic includes modal logic, intuitional logic, paraconsistent logic, fuzzy
logic, linear temporal logic etc.
 BASIC INTRODUCTION :
MODAL LOGIC
MODAL LOGIC is a type of non-classical logic that extend classical logic by
introducing modalities or model propositions, which are expressions that modify and
qualify propositions in terms of necessity and possibility.

The most well-known modal propositions are propositions about:

what is necessarily the case and what is possibly/probably the case.
 MODAL PROPOSITIONS
EXAMPLES
The following are all modal propositions:
oIt is possible that it will rain tomorrow.
oIt is possible for humans to travel to Mars.
oIt is not possible that: every person is mortal, and Socrates is a person, and Socrates
is not mortal.
oIt is necessary that either it is raining here now or it is not raining here now.
oA proposition p is not possible if and only if the negation of p is necessary.
The operators ‘it is possible that’ and ‘it is necessary that’ are called ‘modal’
operators.
 FORMAL SEMANTICS OF
MODALITIES
Modal logic represents statements as possibly/necessarily true or
possibly/necessarily false.

It is possible that A holds ◇A

It is necessary that A holds □ A

EXAMPLES
¬ ◇(p ¬ p) □( p  q)(□ p □q) □ ◇ □ ◇ p □ □ q
CONCEPT OF MODAL LOGIC

NECESSITY POSSIBILITY
p / ¬ ◇ ¬p p /¬ ¬ ¬p

ANALYTICITY CONTINGENCY
p v ¬ ¬p ◇ p & ◇ ¬p
¬(◇ p & ◇¬p) ¬( pv ¬p )

IMPOSSIBILITY
¬ ◇ p / □ ¬p
 SYSTEM-K
System gets it’s name from logician Saul Kripke.
FORMATION RULES
Any lone propositional variable is a well formed formulae(wff).
If A is a wff, ¬A is a wff.
Let x be any binary operator &, v, , or : if A and B are wffs, (AXB) is a wff.
If A is wff, □A and ◇A are wffs.
 POSSIBLE WORLD
In modal logic, a possible world is a concept used to represent a distinct hypothetical state of affairs or a
different way a world or situation could be.
(NOTE- Possible worlds serve as a framework for evaluating the truth value of propositions in modal logic.)
Each possible world (W) represents a complete and consistent description of a specific scenario or situation.
Example-
 we can interpret ‘◇p‘ as ‘ in some possible world W0, p is the case’.
 we can interpret ‘□p’ as ‘ in all possible worlds W, p is the case’.
 we can interpret ‘¬◇p’ as ‘ there are no possible world W where p is the case’.
 we can interpret ‘□¬p’ as ‘ if p is False in all possible world W, then ¬p must be True in all possible worlds.
 we can interpret ‘◇¬p’ and ‘¬□p’ as ‘if p is false in at least one possible world, then p can’t be true in all
possible worlds’.
 POSSIBLE WORLDS : MODEL
Model <W, R, a>
W: set of all possible worlds W0, W1,W2, W3,…
R: binary relations among worlds in W.
a: the assignment function W0 W1
Example- p= elephant can fly
aW0(p) =0 aW1(p)=1

W0RW1 : “W1 is accessible from W0” W0 = the actual world.

aW0(◇p) =1

But relative to actual law of nature, its no longer the case W0RW1 and aW0(◇p) =0
 TRUTH TREES FOR VALID
ARGUMENTS
A ¬A □ ¬A
◇ ¬A
W0 W0 W0 W0
□A ◇A ¬□A ¬◇A

W1 A W1 A W1 ¬A W1 ¬A

-- Only use □ A and ¬◇ A when you already have an arrow to another world.
-- When using ◇ A and ¬ □ A, you must draw in a new arrow and a new world!!
-- Each branch is independent.
-- Worlds from same branch must be evaluated together.
 EXAMPLES
1. ◇p & ◇¬q/ ¬ (¬□q□¬p)
W0 ◇ p & ◇ ¬q
(¬ □q □ ¬p)
◇P
◇ ¬q

□q □¬p
W1
P P
q W3 ¬p
⊥
W2 ¬q
q
⊥

Valid argument
2. □(pp)(□ p  □ p)

W0 ¬(□(pp)(□ p □ p))
□(pq)
¬((□p□q)
□p
¬□q

¬q
W1 p
pq

¬P q
Valid argument ⊥ ⊥
 TRUTH TREES FOR INVALID
ARGUMENTS
1. (□ p p)
W0 ¬ (□pp)
□p
¬p

2. (□ p ◇p)
W0 ¬ (□p◇p)
□p
¬◇p
□¬p
EXAMPLES
(◇ p □◇p)

¬ (◇p□◇p)
W0 ◇p
¬ □◇p

p
W2

¬ ◇p
W3 □¬p

Invalid argument
2. (□p □q) □(pq)

W0 ¬( (□ p □ q) □(pq))
(□ p □ q)
¬□ (pq)

¬□p □p

W1 ¬(pq) W2 ¬(pq)
p p
¬q ¬q
¬p
⊥
W3 ¬p

Invalid argument
 SOUNDNESS AND
COMPLETENESS
SOUNDNESS : if ∏ ⊢ A then ∏ ⊨ A.
if the argument ∏/Ais derivable, then it is valid.
A system is sound only if it does not allow the derivation of arguments
for which there is a counterexample.

COMPLETENESS : if ∏ ⊨ A then ∏ ⊢ A.
if the argument ∏/A is valid, then it is derivable.
A system is complete only if all the arguments that have no
counterexample can be derived.
 SYSTEM M
System K is also known as “normal modal logics”
Other systems in the family of systems are all extension of A.
Need?
If we interpret □ as ‘necessarily’ and ◇ as ‘possibly’, this will leads to some strange
results in K.
Example we can assert both □A and ¬A in the same world.
For disallowing this we need a logic that allows us to derive A from □A.
If vW0(□A )=1 then vW0(A )=1.
So we can make the accessibility relation reflexive.
1
SYSTEM M = SYSTEM K + reflexivity. WxRWx
 ⊨ □A◇A

W0RW W0
⊨ □AA 0
¬(□A◇A)
□A
W0RW □A W0 ¬◇A
0 A A
¬A
⊥
 SYSTEM B
SYSTEM B= SYSTEM K+ Reflexivity + Symmetry
if WxRWy then WyRWx
For all x, WxRWx

Model:

1 2 3

4
 ⊨A□◇A

¬(A□◇A W0
)
A
¬□◇A

W0RW1
¬◇A W1
¬A
W1RW0 A

⊥ W0
 SYSTEM S4
SYSTEM S4= System K+ Reflexivity+ Transitive
If WxRWy and WyRWz then WxRWz
For all x, WxRWx

Model:

1 2 3 4
 ⊨ □◇p □◇□◇p
⊨ □A□□A Proof tree:
0R0
¬(□◇p □◇□◇p), 0
¬(□A□□A) W0 □◇p, 0 ◇p, 0
□A ¬□◇□◇p, 0
¬□□A 0R1 1R1
¬◇□◇p, 1 ¬□◇p, 1
W0RW1 ◇p, 1
1R2 2R2
W0RW2 ¬□A W1 0R2
A
P, 2
¬□◇p, 2
W1RW2 2R3 3R3
¬A 1R3
W2 0R3
A
⊥ ¬◇p, 3 ¬p, 3
¬p, 3
⊥
 SYSTEM S5
SYSTEM S5= SYSTEM K+ Reflexivity+ Symmetry+ Transitive
If WxRWy then WyRWx
If WxRWy and WyRWz then WxRWz
For all x, WxRWx
Model :

1 2 3

4
 ⊨(□pv□q) □(□pv□q)
⊨ ◇p□◇p
¬((□pv□q) □(□pv□q)) W0 Proof tree
(□pv□q)
¬□(□pv□q) For all x&y xRy
¬(◇p□◇p), 0
□p □q ◇p, 0
p q ¬□◇p, 0
¬◇p, 1
¬p, 2
p, 2
¬(□pv□q) ¬(□pv□q)
¬ □p
W1 W3 ¬ □p
⊥
W0RW1 ¬ □q ¬ □q W0RW3
p q
W1RW2 W3RW4
¬p W2 W4 ¬p
P P
W0RW2 ⊥ ⊥ W0RW4
 APPLICATIONS OF MODAL
LOGIC
Model logic is a broad and rapidly expanding area of logic with applications to such
diverse areas such as:
Computer science,
linguistics
Mathematics
Philosophy
Planning and Robotics
Temporal Reasoning
Epistemic Logics
THANK YOU 