Semantics For Admissible Rules
A rule Γ/B is valid in a modal or intuitionistic Kripke frame, if the following is true for every valuation in F:
- if for all, then .
(The definition readily generalizes to general frames, if needed.)
Let X be a subset of W, and t a point in W. We say that t is
- a reflexive tight predecessor of X, if for every y in W: t R y if and only if t = y or x = y or x R y for some x in X,
- an irreflexive tight predecessor of X, if for every y in W: t R y if and only if x = y or x R y for some x in X.
We say that a frame F has reflexive (irreflexive) tight predecessors, if for every finite subset X of W, there exists a reflexive (irreflexive) tight predecessor of X in W.
We have:
- a rule is admissible in IPC if and only if it is valid in all intuitionistic frames which have reflexive tight predecessors,
- a rule is admissible in K4 if and only if it is valid in all transitive frames which have reflexive and irreflexive tight predecessors,
- a rule is admissible in S4 if and only if it is valid in all transitive reflexive frames which have reflexive tight predecessors,
- a rule is admissible in GL if and only if it is valid in all transitive converse well-founded frames which have irreflexive tight predecessors.
Note that apart from a few trivial cases, frames with tight predecessors must be infinite, hence admissible rules in basic transitive logics do not enjoy the finite model property.
Read more about this topic: Admissible Rule
Famous quotes containing the words admissible and/or rules:
“... if we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well.”
—Helen Prejean (b. 1940)
“Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic.”
—Sir Peter Frederick Strawson (b. 1919)