Squares in Fork Arrow Logic

In this paper we show that the class of fork squares has a complete orthodox axiomatization in fork arrow logic (FAL). This result may be seen as an orthodox counterpart of Venema's non-orthodox axiomatization for the class of squares in arrow logic. FAL is the modal logic of fork algebras (FAs) just as arrow logic is the modal logic of relation algebras (RAs). FAs extend RAs by a binary fork operator and are axiomatized by adding three equations to RAs equational axiomatization. A proper FA is an algebra of relations where the fork is induced by an injective operation coding pair formation. In contrast to RAs, FAs are representable by proper ones and their equational theory has the expressive power of full first-order logic. A square semantics (the set of arrows is U×U for some set U) for arrow logic was defined by Y. Venema. Due to the negative results about the finite axiomatizability of representable RAs, Venema provided a non-orthodox finite axiomatization for arrow logic by adding a new rule governing the applications of a difference operator. We address here the question of extending the type of relational structures to define orthodox axiomatizations for the class of squares. Given the connections between this problem and the finitization problem addressed by I. Németi, we suspect that this cannot be done by using only logical operations. The modal version of the FA equations provides an orthodox axiomatization for FAL which is complete in view of the representability of FAs. Here we review this result and carry it further to prove that this orthodox axiomatization for FAL also axiomatizes the class of fork squares.

[1]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Fork Algebras , 1997, Relational Methods in Computer Science.

[2]  Dimiter Vakarelov Many-dimensional arrow logics , 1996, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[3]  Rozália Madarász,et al.  Power structures , 2018, Dental Abstracts.

[4]  A. Tarski,et al.  A Formalization Of Set Theory Without Variables , 1987 .

[5]  A. Tarski,et al.  Boolean Algebras with Operators , 1952 .

[6]  Giovanni Sambin,et al.  A new proof of Sahlqvist's theorem on modal definability and completeness , 1989, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  E. J. Lemmon,et al.  Algebraic semantics for modal logics I , 1966, Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL).

[8]  E. J. Lemmon,et al.  Algebraic semantics for modal logics II , 1966, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[9]  maarten marx,et al.  Arrow logic and multi-modal logic , 1997 .

[10]  Roger D. Maddux,et al.  Relation-Algebraic Semantics , 1996, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Yde Venema,et al.  A note on the tense logic of dominoes , 1992, J. Philos. Log..

[12]  Maarten Marx,et al.  Multi-dimensional modal logic , 1997, Applied logic series.

[13]  Y. Venema A crash course in arrow logic , 1994 .

[14]  Henrik Sahlqvist Completeness and Correspondence in the First and Second Order Semantics for Modal Logic , 1975 .

[15]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  Fork Algebras in Algebra, Logic and Computer Science , 2002, Fundam. Informaticae.

[16]  Marcelo F. Frias,et al.  A Finite Axiomatization for Fork Algebras , 1997, Log. J. IGPL.

[17]  R. Labrecque The Correspondence Theory , 1978 .

[18]  A. Tarski,et al.  Boolean Algebras with Operators. Part I , 1951 .

[19]  István Németi,et al.  Algebraization of quantifier logics, an introductory overview , 1991, Stud Logica.

[20]  Saul Kripke,et al.  A completeness theorem in modal logic , 1959, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[21]  J. Donald Monk,et al.  Nonfinitizability of Classes of Representable Cylindric Algebras , 1969, J. Symb. Log..