Philip Kremer

In ‘Fair Infinite Lotteries’ (FIL), Wenmackers and Horsten use non-standard analysis to construct a family of nicely-behaved hyperrational-valued probability measures on sets of natural numbers. Each probability measure in FIL is determined by a free ultrafilter on the natural numbers: distinct free ultrafilters determine distinct probability measures. The authors reply to a worry about a consequent ‘arbitrariness’ by remarking, “A different choice of free ultrafilter produces a different ... probability function with the same standard part but infinitesimal differences.” They illustrate this remark with the example of the sets of odd and even numbers. Depending on the ultrafilter, either each of these sets has probability 1/2, or the set of odd numbers has a probability infinitesimally higher than 1/2 and the set of even numbers infinitesimally lower. The point of the current paper is simply that the amount of indeterminacy is much greater than acknowledged in FIL: there are sets of natural numbers whose probability is far more indeterminate than that of the set of odd or the set of even numbers

Fine and Kripke extended S5, S4, S4.2 and such to produce propositionally quantified systems , , : given a Kripke frame, the quantifiers range over all the sets of possible worlds. is decidable and, as Fine and Kripke showed, many of the other systems are recursively isomorphic to second-order logic. In the present paper I consider the propositionally quantified system that arises from the topological semantics for S4, rather than from the Kripke semantics. The topological system, which I dub , is strictly weaker than its Kripkean counterpart. I prove here that second-order arithmetic can be recursively embedded in . In the course of the investigation, I also sketch a proof of Fine's and Kripke's results that the Kripkean system is recursively isomorphic to second-order logic

Let ${{\mathcal L}^{\square\circ}}$ be a propositional language with standard Boolean connectives plus two modalities: an S4-ish topological modality □ and a temporal modality ◦, understood as ‘next’. We extend the topological semantic for S4 to a semantics for the language ${{\mathcal L}^{\square\circ}}$ by interpreting ${{\mathcal L}^{\square\circ}}$ in dynamic topological systems, i.e., ordered pairs 〈X, f〉, where X is a topological space and f is a continuous function on X. Artemov, Davoren and Nerode have axiomatized a logic S4C, and have shown that S4C is sound and complete for this semantics. S4C is also complete for continuous functions on Cantor space (Mints and Zhang, Kremer), and on the real plane (Fernández Duque); but incomplete for continuous functions on the real line (Kremer and Mints, Slavnov). Here we show that S4C is complete for continuous functions on the rational numbers

The topological semantics for modal logic interprets a standard modal propositional language in topological spaces rather than Kripke frames: the most general logic of topological spaces becomes S4. But other modal logics can be given a topological semantics by restricting attention to subclasses of topological spaces: in particular, S5 is logic of the class of almost discrete topological spaces, and also of trivial topological spaces. Dynamic Topological Logic interprets a modal language enriched with two unary temporal connectives, next and henceforth. DTL interprets the extended language in dynamic topological systems: a DTS is a topological space together with a continuous function used to interpret the temporal connectives. In this paper, we axiomatize four conservative extensions of S5, and show them to be the logic of continuous functions on almost discrete spaces, of homeomorphisms on almost discrete spaces, of continuous functions on trivial spaces and of homeomorphisms on trivial spaces

Shehtman introduced bimodal logics of the products of Kripke frames, thereby introducing frame products of unimodal logics. Van Benthem, Bezhanishvili, ten Cate and Sarenac generalize this idea to the bimodal logics of the products of topological spaces, thereby introducing topological products of unimodal logics. In particular, they show that the topological product of S4 and S4 is S4 ⊗ S4, i.e., the fusion of S4 and S4: this logic is strictly weaker than the frame product S4 × S4. In this paper, we axiomatize the topological product of S4 and S5, which is strictly between S4 ⊗ S5 and S4 × S5. We also apply our techniques to (1) proving a conjecture of van Benthem et al concerning the logic of products of Alexandrov spaces with arbitrary topological spaces; and (2) solving a problem in quantified modal logic: in particular, it is known that standard quantified S4 without identity, QS4, is complete in Kripke semantics with expanding domains; we show that QS4 is complete not only in topological semantics with constant domains (which was already shown by Rasiowa and Sikorski), but wrt the topological space Q with a constant countable domain.

In the topological semantics for modal logic, S4 is well-known to be complete for the rational line, for the real line, and for Cantor space: these are special cases of S4’s completeness for any dense-in-itself metric space. The construction used to prove completeness can be slightly amended to show that S4 is not only complete, but also strongly complete, for the rational line. But no similarly easy amendment is available for the real line or for Cantor space and the question of strong completeness for these spaces has remained open, together with the more general question of strong completeness for any dense-in-itself metric space. In this paper, we prove that S4 is strongly complete for any dense-in-itself metric space

We critically investigate and refine Dunn's relevant predication, his formalisation of the notion of a real property. We argue that Dunn's original dialectical moves presuppose some interpretation of relevant identity, though none is given. We then re-motivate the proposal in a broader context, considering the prospects for a classical formalisation of real properties, particularly of Geach's implicit distinction between real and ''Cambridge'' properties. After arguing against these prospects, we turn to relevance logic, re-motivating relevant predication with Geach's distinction in mind. Finally we draw out some consequences of Dunn's proposal for the theory of identity in relevance logic.