Solutions to the Exercises from Session 3
Exercises
The following are a bit harder puzzles for the courageous.
-
We have just shown that O(Op→p) holds in Anderson’s system with reflexive accessibility relation. Does it hold in SDL? If yes, give an argument. If no, find a counter-model.
-
What about OOp→Op?
-
In view of the distribution principle
- O(p→q)→(Op→Oq)
O(Op→p) implies OOp→Op. Do you see how this is so?
-
Is there an SDL models where OOp→Op holds but O(Op→p) not?
Solutions
Ad 1
No it doesn’t. We give a counter-model M=⟨{w1,w2},R,v,w1⟩. The accessibility relation is given in the following graph:

Our assignment is as follows:
world | p |
---|---|
w1 | 1 |
w2 | 0 |
Then: M,w1⊨¬O(Op→p). The reason is that M,w2⊨Op∧¬p.
Additional information: the principle O(Op→p) can be warranted if we impose secondary or step reflexivity on the accessibility relation. It says: for all w and w′, if wRw′ then w′Rw′.
Ad 2
In the previous model we have:
- M,w1⊨OOp but
- M,w1⊨¬Op since M,w2⊨¬p.
Additional information: the principle OOp→Op can be warrented if we impose density on the accessibility relation. It says: for all w and w′, if wRw′ then there is a w′′ for which wRw′′ and w′′Rw′.
Ad 3
In SDL the distribution principle holds for O. So, for any formulas A and B,
- O(A→B)→(OA→OB).
If we now set A=Op and B=p then:
- O(Op→p)→(OOp→Op).
Ad 4
No it doesn’t. We give a counter-model M=⟨{w1,w2,w3},R,v,w1⟩. The accessibility relation is given in the following graph:

Our assignment is as follows:
world | p |
---|---|
w1 | 1 |
w2 | 0 |
w3 | 1 |
We have:
- M,w1⊨OOp→Op since M,w1⊨¬OOp. However,
- M,w1⊨¬O(Op→p) since M,w2⊨Op∧¬p.