Completeness in hybrid type theory
We show that basic hybridization (adding nominals and @ operators) makes it possible to give straightforward Henkin-style completeness proofs even when the modal logic being hybridized is higher-order. The key ideas are to add nominals as expressions of type t, and to extend to arbitrary types the w...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11086/20021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9260-4 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | We show that basic hybridization (adding nominals and @ operators) makes it possible to give straightforward Henkin-style completeness proofs even when the modal logic being hybridized is higher-order. The key ideas are to add nominals as expressions of type t, and to extend to arbitrary types the way we interpret @i in propositional and first-order hybrid logic. This means: interpret @iαa, where αa is an expression of any type a, as an expression of type a that rigidly returns the value that αa receives at the i-world. The axiomatization and completeness proofs are generalizations of those found in propositional and first-order hybrid logic, and (as is usual in hybrid logic) we automatically obtain a wide range of completeness results for stronger logics and languages. Our approach is deliberately low-tech. We don’t, for example, make use of Montague’s intensional type s, or Fitting-style intensional models; we build, as simply as we can, hybrid logic over Henkin’s logic. |
|---|