2
$\begingroup$

Consider Propositional Lax Logic ($PLL$)

The Hilbert system of $PLL$ takes as axiom schemata all theorems of (or a complete set of axioms for) the Intuitionistic propositional calculus plus the modal axiom schemata $\bigcirc R, \bigcirc M, \bigcirc S$ below. The inference rules are Modus Ponens and the rule "from $M \supset N$ infer $\bigcirc M \supset \bigcirc N$":

$$\text{Axiom} \bigcirc R: \hspace{0.5cm}M \supset \bigcirc M$$ $$\text{Axiom} \bigcirc M: \hspace{0.8cm} (\thinspace \bigcirc \bigcirc M\thinspace) \supset \bigcirc M$$ $$\text{Axiom} \bigcirc S: \hspace{0.8cm}(\bigcirc M \land \bigcirc N) \supset \bigcirc(M \land N)$$

A proof of the modal collapse (We can derive both $\bigcirc M \supset M$ and $M \supset \bigcirc M$) of $PLL$ obtained by adding the Excluded Middle (EM) and $\neg \bigcirc false$ was given in this answer: Modal collapse upon addition of the law of the excluded middle to an Intuitionistic modal logic.

The modal collapse was claimed in https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/wiai_professuren/grundlagen_informatik/papersMM/pll.pdf:

"...if we add the axiom of the Excluded Middle (EM) and $\neg \bigcirc false$ which is valid for both $\Diamond$ and $\Box$ to the modal system $\bigcirc R, \bigcirc M, \bigcirc S$ then $\bigcirc$ becomes trivial. We can derive both $\bigcirc M \supset M$ and $M \supset \bigcirc M$ In other words there is no classical Kripke semantics for $\bigcirc$." (p.4, para 1 of the above article)

However, I was wondering:

(1) Can we get the modal collapse if we only assume the law of the excluded middle, and we don't assume $¬◯⊥$?

(2) If we are able to avoid the modal collapse by abandoning $¬◯⊥$, would abandoning $¬◯⊥$ be problematic in other ways?


A response was given below which I do not understand:

"(1) Clearly not, as the logic is contained in the logic axiomatized by classical logic and ◯A for all formulas A."

I would also be grateful for any clarifications of this comment.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (1) Clearly not, as the logic is contained in the logic axiomatized by classical logic and $\bigcirc A$ for all formulas $A$. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Mar 29 '18 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I didn't understand your response. You are saying that we clearly do not get the modal collapse with $PLL$ plus excluded middle without $\neg \bigcirc \bot$, since $\bigcirc A$ holds for all formuals $A$? $\endgroup$ – user65526 Mar 29 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, the argument from the linked page shows that even without assuming $\neg{\bigcirc}\bot$, you get the schema $\bigcirc A\leftrightarrow A\lor{\bigcirc}\bot$, which is hardly any beter than full modal collapse. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Mar 29 '18 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ No, that's not what I wrote. "Contained in" means contained in, not equal. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Mar 29 '18 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, but what do you mean by saying "clearly not"? Clearly not what? And why clearly not? $\endgroup$ – user65526 Mar 29 '18 at 17:08
2
$\begingroup$

Notice that by the inference rule $$\frac{M\supset N}{\bigcirc M\supset\bigcirc N}\tag{@}$$ we have $$\frac{\bot\supset N}{\bigcirc \bot\supset\bigcirc N}$$ But $\bot\supset N$ always holds. So either we have $\neg\bigcirc\bot$, the case already covered in the linked answer; or we have $\bigcirc\bot$, in which case all statements of the form $\bigcirc N$ are true. In this case $\bigcirc$ "collapses" in a different way: $\top\leftrightarrow\bigcirc N$ instead of $N\leftrightarrow\bigcirc N$.

Moreover, the case $\top\leftrightarrow \bigcirc N$ does happen, as @EmilJeřábek pointed out, because all the other axioms are consistent with this possibility.

Conclusion:

either way, adding Law of Excluded Middle to PLL is not a good idea.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't fully understand why you get the biconditional $\top \leftrightarrow \bigcirc N$. If we have $\bigcirc \bot$, we can derive $\bigcirc N$. But then how does $\top$ enter the picture? Also, the part of the proof where you say we either have $\neg \bigcirc \bot$ or $\bigcirc \bot$, does that come merely from the assumption the we have the law of the excluded middle? $\endgroup$ – user65526 Mar 29 '18 at 20:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We could say that $\bigcirc$ "collapses" if $\bigcirc N$ is equivalent to something somehow trivial. But yeah, $\top\leftrightarrow\bigcirc N$ is just a long way of saying $\bigcirc N$. $\endgroup$ – Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen Mar 29 '18 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ It's just occurred to me: one way of avoiding the modal collapse is to abandon the inference rule you call (@) in your answer. What do you think about that strategy? Then you could perhaps have the law of the excluded middle but not $\neg \bigcirc \bot$, and the logic wouldn't be forced to be Intuitionistic. But perhaps the inference rule (@) was chosen for well motivated reasons. $\endgroup$ – user65526 Mar 29 '18 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ Furthermore if we propose different inference rules, the matter doesn't improve: if we adopt (@_1) $$\frac{M\supset N}{M\supset\bigcirc N}\tag{@_1}$$, we can derive $\top \leftrightarrow \bigcirc N$, and if we add (@_2)$$\frac{M\supset N}{\bigcirc M\supset N}\tag{@_2}$$, we can derive $\top \leftrightarrow N$, by the same argument given above. $\endgroup$ – user65526 Mar 30 '18 at 11:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.