Gross tonnage: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:02, 1 February 2014

Neighborhood semantics, also known as Scott-Montague semantics, is a formal semantics for modal logics. It is a generalization, developed independently by Dana Scott and Richard Montague, of the more widely known relational semantics for modal logic. Whereas a relational frame $⟨ W, R ⟩$ consists of a set W of worlds (or states) and an accessibility relation R intended to indicate which worlds are alternatives to (or, accessible from) others, a neighborhood frame $⟨ W, N ⟩$ still has a set W of worlds, but has instead of an accessibility relation a neighborhood function

N : W \to 2^{2^{W}}

that assigns to each element of W a set of subsets of W. Intuitively, each family of subsets assigned to a world are the propositions necessary at that world, where 'proposition' is defined as a subset of W (i.e. the set of worlds at which the proposition is true). Specifically, if M is a model on the frame, then

M, w ⊨ ◻ A ⟺ (A)^{M} \in N (w),

where

(A)^{M} = {u \in W ∣ M, u ⊨ A}

is the truth set of A.

Neighborhood semantics is used for the classical modal logics that are strictly weaker than the normal modal logic K.

Correspondence between relational and neighborhood models

To every relational model M = (W,R,V) there corresponds an equivalent (in the sense of having point-wise equivalent modal theories) neighborhood model M' = (W,N,V) defined by

N (w) = {(A)^{M} : M, w ⊨ ◻ A} .

The fact that the converse fails gives a precise sense to the remark that neighborhood models are a generalization of relational ones. Another (perhaps more natural) generalization of relational structures are general relational structures.

References

Scott, D. "Advice in modal logic", in Philosophical Problems in Logic, ed. Karel Lambert. Reidel, 1970.
Montague, R. "Universal Grammar", Theoria 36, 373-98, 1970.
Chellas, B.F. Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Template:Logic-stub

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Let me first begin by introducing myself. My name is Boyd  home [http://www.pinaydiaries.com/user/LConsiden std testing at home] test Butts even though it is not the name on my beginning certification. Hiring is her day occupation now but she's always wanted her personal company. Minnesota has always been his house but his wife desires them to move. One of the  home [http://Www.herpes.org/smart-living-with-genital-herpes/ std test] very best things in the globe for him is to gather badges but he is having difficulties to find time for it.<br><br>Take a look [http://www.1a-pornotube.com/blog/84958 std testing at home] my weblog :: [http://www.neweracinema.com/tube/blog/74189 at home std test]
+'''Neighborhood semantics''', also known as '''Scott-Montague semantics''', is a formal semantics for modal logics.  It is a generalization, developed independently by [[Dana Scott]] and [[Richard Montague]], of the more widely known [[Kripke semantics|relational semantics]] for modal logic.  Whereas a [[Kripke frame|relational frame]] <math>\langle W,R\rangle</math> consists of a set ''W'' of worlds (or states) and an [[accessibility relation]] ''R'' intended to indicate which worlds are alternatives to (or, accessible from) others, a '''neighborhood frame''' <math>\langle W,N\rangle</math> still has a set ''W'' of worlds, but has instead of an accessibility relation a ''neighborhood function''
+: <math> N : W \to 2^{2^W} </math>
+that assigns to each element of ''W'' a set of subsets of ''W''.  Intuitively, each family of subsets assigned to a world are the propositions necessary at that world, where 'proposition' is defined as a subset of ''W'' (i.e. the set of worlds at which the proposition is true).  Specifically, if ''M'' is a model on the frame, then
+: <math> M,w\models\square A \Longleftrightarrow (A)^M \in N(w), </math>
+where
+: <math>(A)^M = \{u\in W \mid M,u\models A \}</math>
+is the ''truth set'' of ''A''.
+Neighborhood semantics is used for the classical modal logics that are strictly weaker than the [[normal modal logic]] '''K'''.
+==Correspondence between relational and neighborhood models==
+To every relational model M = (W,R,V) there corresponds an equivalent (in the sense of having point-wise equivalent modal theories) neighborhood model M' = (W,N,V) defined by
+: <math> N(w) = \{(A)^M: M,w\models\Box A\}. </math>
+The fact that the converse fails gives a precise sense to the remark that neighborhood models are a generalization of relational ones. Another (perhaps more natural) generalization of relational structures are [[general frame|general relational structures]].
+==References==
+* Scott, D.  "Advice in modal logic", in ''Philosophical Problems in Logic'', ed. Karel Lambert.  Reidel, 1970.
+* Montague, R. "Universal Grammar", ''Theoria'' 36, 373-98, 1970.
+* Chellas, B.F.  ''Modal Logic''.  Cambridge University Press, 1980.
+[[Category:Modal logic]]
+{{logic-stub}}

Gross tonnage: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:02, 1 February 2014

Correspondence between relational and neighborhood models

References

Navigation menu

Search