1
$\begingroup$

In my homework I was asked to prove that a deduction system for modal logic with $\rightarrow$, $\neg$ and $\square$, with 4 axioms and 2 inference rules (MP and a $\square$-generalization rule), is weakened and turned incomplete once you take away the generalization rule.

Now, since I don't want you to solve my homework for me, I just want a hint about the possible approaches to prove that a deduction system is incomplete (not necessarily a modal logic system even).

So far I tried taking a counterexample and showing the resulting formal proof sequence will be infinite, but the my proof was just growing exponentially complex (rather than rely on induction).

  • 1
    Find a _different_ semantics for your modal logic such that the deduction system remains sound, but what you want to prove is false.2012-03-11
  • 0
    What does "different semantics" mean for, say, the Hilbert system? For example, will redefining $\to$ to have a different truth table mean "different semantics"?2012-03-11
  • 1
    Here is a concrete example: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~yuvalf/until.pdf. Your problem should be easier.2012-03-11
  • 0
    @Ilya: Yes. Actually, you may have to enlarge the set of your truth values as well.2012-03-11

0 Answers 0