Solutions to the Exercises from Session 3

Exercises

The following are a bit harder puzzles for the courageous.

  1. We have just shown that O(Opp) 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.

  2. What about OOpOp?

  3. In view of the distribution principle

    • O(pq)(OpOq)

    O(Opp) implies OOpOp. Do you see how this is so?

  4. Is there an SDL models where OOpOp holds but O(Opp) 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(Opp). The reason is that M,w2Op¬p.

Additional information: the principle O(Opp) can be warranted if we impose secondary or step reflexivity on the accessibility relation. It says: for all w and w, if wRw then wRw.

Ad 2

In the previous model we have:

  • M,w1OOp but
  • M,w1¬Op since M,w2¬p.

Additional information: the principle OOpOp 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 wRw.

Ad 3

In SDL the distribution principle holds for O. So, for any formulas A and B,

  • O(AB)(OAOB).

If we now set A=Op and B=p then:

  • O(Opp)(OOpOp).

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,w1OOpOp since M,w1¬OOp. However,
  • M,w1¬O(Opp) since M,w2Op¬p.