Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The reverse deductive correspondence holds: translations that are theorems of MSL correspond to theorems of the modal calculus.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The canonical model construction presupposes completeness of the base modal calculus, which fails for some normal modal logics (e.g., certain logics above S4).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the modal calculus is incomplete with respect to Kripke semantics, the canonical model B_K cannot faithfully represent all theorems, breaking the correspondence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Many-sorted logic translations collapse intensional distinctions when modal operators are encoded as predicates over sort-restricted domains (cf. Fitting's concerns about intensional contexts).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A formula provable in MSL via extensional reasoning about sorted domains may not correspond to a genuinely modal theorem but to an artifact of the translation scheme.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The canonical model B_K (or B_S4) can be used to build the general structure B_K𝔊 (or B_S4𝔊)
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The translation of a modal formula φ is true at a world of this general structure if and only if φ belongs to that world
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42