Arxiv:1904.06099V5 [Math.LO]

Home , List of axioms

arXiv:1904.06099v5 [math.LO] 27 May 2020 h rbe sta ntopology in that is some logics, problem non-normal The with used frequently most are bourhoods eatc o oa oislasu ossesntwae than weaker not systems so-called to the us with leads equivalent logics modal for semantics formu specific of means by characterized Mo be etc.). can compactness density, properties of these notions the on (dep or frames separation possible-world of of se properties various Cantor discuss or to plane us real lows line, real (like objects abs mathematical somewhat known as considered be can (which semantics possible-world osbewrd eatc ti uta rirr myeee empty even are (maybe which arbitrary worlds an these just is it semantics possible-worlds of than weaker sue hthsfml sntcoe ne nt intersections. finite under closed not be is not family may his universe that whole assumed the (i.e. axiom superset discarded author generalized nteohrhn,tplg srte tognto.Frexample, For notion. strong rather is topology hand, other the On bridg form They logic. formal in useful very are notions Topological o hsrao,i sdffiutt pa bu oooia eatc fo semantics topological about speak to difficult is it reason, this For ieetcasso rms lo he ye fbisimulati of types three Also, correspond prove frames. of we classes and different results completeness some logics known obtain quite We the re to both leads one operators, second two The of necessity. interplay of the on based is them t to of approaches one two least at consider We certai logics. establish modal to normal framework this not of version does modified universe use We whole the Moreover, intersections. finite Abstract. EEAIE OOOIA SEMANTICS TOPOLOGICAL GENERALIZED S4 oooia pcsaaye yC´s´ri 6.I sqienatural: quite is It Császár by [6]. analysed in spaces topological o omninnnnra ytm.Hne eueteconcept the use we Hence, systems. non-normal mention to not , eeaie oooia pcsaentncsaiyclosed necessarily not are spaces topological Generalized O EKMDLLOGICS MODAL WEAK FOR assigned S4 OAZWITCZAK TOMASZ 1. otegvnworld given the to egbuho frames neighbourhood neighbourhood Introduction 1 svr ioosnto,wiein while notion, rigorous very is w . se[4) oee,neigh- However, [14]). (see naeinvestigated. are on MT4 oesfrnon- for models n i oi,wherein topic, his edt eopen. be to need etn h idea the flecting nebetween ence and las. evr sometimes reover, nigo axioms on ending ie eyweak. very times ) oooyal- Topology t). MNT4 rc)adwell- and tract) S4 olcinof collection ) under pn n he and open) hyare They . topological between e . logics r the 2 TOMASZ WITCZAK

One should be aware that Császár’s spaces are not his own invention. Rather, he rediscovered them, starting their systematical study (then continued by the authors from all over the world). In fact, they have been known earlier as interior systems (closely related to Moore families). In formal concept analysis and data clustering they are investigated as extensional abstractions (see [16]) or knowledge spaces (see [7]). Be as it may, in the past twenty years there have been developed generalized analogues of many topological notions: separation axioms, (nowhere) density, continuity, convergence or topological groups. Moreover, there are also further generalizations of the notion of topology: pre- topologies, peritopologies, (generalized) weak structures or minimal structures. It seems that their logical applications are still on the initial stage, at least in the context of possible worlds semantics. Some interesting results for peritopological spaces (e.g. about modal (in)definability of separation axioms) have been obtained by Ahmet and Terziler in [1].

2. Alphabet and language

Speaking about logic, we use rather standard language:

(1) P V is a ﬁxed denumerable set of propositional variables p, q, r, s, ... (2) Logical connectives and operators are ∧, ∨, →, ⊥, ¬ and .

Formulas are generated recursively in a standard manner: if ϕ, ψ are wﬀ’s then also ϕ ∨ ψ, ϕ ∧ ψ, ϕ → ψ and ϕ. Attention: ⇐, ⇒ and ⇔ are used only on the level of meta-language. We shall work with the following list of axioms schemes and rules:

• M : (ϕ ∧ ψ) → ϕ ∧ ψ • RE : ϕ ↔ ψ ⊢ ϕ ↔ ψ (rule of • C : ϕ ∧ ψ → (ϕ ∧ ψ) extensionality) • T : ϕ → ϕ • RN : ϕ ⊢ ϕ (rule of necessity) • D : → ¬¬ϕ • RM : ϕ → ψ ⊢ ϕ → ψ (rule of • K : (ϕ → ψ) → (ϕ → ψ) monotonicity) • 4 : ϕ → ϕ • MP : ϕ, ϕ → ψ ⊢ ψ (modus po- • N : ⊤ (truth axiom) nens)

Later we shall discuss validity of these formulas in various semantical settings.

3. Generalized topological spaces

Here we recall the concept of Cs´asz´ar but with our own notation which is adapted to our further logical considerations. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 3

Deﬁnition 3.1. Assume that there is given a non-empty set (universe) W . We say that µ ⊆ P (W ) is a generalized topology on W iﬀ:

(1) ∅ ∈ µ.

(2) If J is an arbitrary non-empty set and for each i ∈ J, Xi ∈ µ, then

Si∈J Xi ∈ µ.

We say that µ is strong if (and only if) W ∈ µ. We denote such space by sGTS . Any member of µ is called µ-open set. Later we shall speak just about open sets. Any possibility of misunderstanding will be signalized. We define µ-interior of X ⊆ W as the greatest open set contained in X (or equivalently as the union of all open sets contained in X). We denote it by Int(X). Finally, we say that (W, µ) is a generalized topological space (GTS , g.t.s. or gen.top.). Below we present several examples of (finite and infinite) GT -spaces (taken from [15], [4] and [17]):

(1) W = {a,b,c}, µ = {∅, {a}, {b}, {a,b}}. (2) W = {a,b,c}, µ = {∅, {a}, {c}, {a,b}, {a, c}, {b, c},W }. (3) W = R, µ = {A ⊆ R; A ⊆ R \ Z} (so-called Z-forbidden GT ). (4) W is arbitrary, ∅ 6= X ⊆ W , µ = {A ⊆ W ; A ⊆ W \ X}. This is generalization of the preceding example. (5) W = Z, µ = {∅, {1}, {1, 3}, {1, 3, 5}, {1, 3, 5, 7}, ...}. (6) W = R, µ = {∅} ∪ {A ⊆ R; A \ {w}⊆ A for certain w ∈ R}. ∗ (7) |W | >ω0, v∈ / W , W = W ∪ {v}, µ = {∅, {v} ∪ {W \ A}; A ⊆ W, |A|≤ ω0}, our space is hW ∗, µi. (8) W = R,Λ= {[a,b]; a,b ∈ R,a

As we have already said, many topological notions have their generalized counter- parts. It seems that in many cases GT -spaces behave in a manner identical with that of ordinary spaces. However, there are some situations in which the whole case becomes less trivial. For example, a group of Polish authors ([13]) pointed out that two typical deﬁnitions of nowhere density, which are equivalent in a standard framework, are not equivalent in GT -spaces. This allows us to distinguish between nowhere dense sets (for which Int(Cl(A)) = ∅) and strongly nowhere dense sets (for any G ∈ µ there is H ∈ µ such that H ⊆ G and A ∩ H = ∅). Our authors used this distinction in their research about Baire spaces and Banach games. Of course this is completely beyond the scope of our present paper but we would like just to emphasize the fact that generalizations of topology have their internal value. 4 TOMASZ WITCZAK

3.1. Generalized topological models with F. In this section we show certain modal logic framework which is based on the notion of GT -space. In fact, we extend the basic notion even further. Let us take a look at the structure of our space (which is not necessarily strong). We see that there is a maximal open set S µ. Hence, there are two kinds of points: those which are in S µ and those which are beyond this set. The latter points are in some sense orphaned. Recall that in topological semantics we customarily use open neighbourhoods to speak about forcing of modal formulas. Hence, we propose to associate each orphaned point with certain family of open sets by means of a special function F. Here we introduce formal deﬁnition of our new structure:

Deﬁnition 3.2. We deﬁne GTF -model as a quadruple Mµ = hWµ, µ, F, Vµi where

µ is a generalized topology on Wµ, Vµ is a function from P V into P (W ) and F is a function from Wµ into P (P ((S µ)) such that:

• If w ∈ S µ, then [X ∈ Fw ⇔ X ∈ µ and w ∈ X][Fw is a shortcut for F(w)].

• If w ∈ Wµ \ S µ, then [X ∈Fw ⇒ X ∈ µ].

F can be considered as an arbitrary extension (on the whole W ) of the map that associates with any w ∈ S µ the principal ﬁlter generated by this w.

If there is no valuation established, then we say that hWµ, µ, Fi is a GTF -frame. −1 We use the following symbol: A = {z ∈ W ; A ∈Fz} for any A ∈ µ.

Deﬁnition 3.3. If M = hWµ,µ,Vµi is an GTF -model, then we deﬁne relation

µ between worlds and formulas in the following way:

(1) w µ q ⇔ w ∈ Vµ(q) for any q ∈ P V .

(2) w µ ϕ ∧ ψ (resp. ϕ ∨ ψ) ⇔ w µ ϕ and (resp. or) w µ ψ.

(3) w µ ϕ → ψ ⇔ w 1µ ϕ or w µ ψ.

(4) w µ ¬ϕ ⇔ w 1µ ϕ.

(5) w µ ϕ ⇔ there is Ow ∈Fw such that for each v ∈ Ow, v ϕ.

Now let us deﬁne generalized topological neighbourhoods in this framework.

Deﬁnition 3.4. If hWµ, µ, Fi is a GTF -frame, then for each w ∈ Wµ we deﬁne its family of generalized topological neighbourhoods as: µ Nw = {X ⊆ S µ such that there is Ow ∈Fw that Ow ⊆ X}.

In this paper we use GTF -structures merely as logical models. However, we have developed a small theory of these structures, which was presented in [3]. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 5

In particular, we have introduced and studied several topological notions like F- interior (-closure), F-convergence (of generalized nets) and some separation axioms.

3.2. Suitable neighbourhood frames. Now let us think about corresponding neighbourhood frames. Our goal is to obtain pointwise equivalence between them and GTF -structures.

Deﬁnition 3.5. We deﬁne GTn -model as a triple M = hW, N , V i where V is a function from P V into P (W ), N is a function from W into P (P (W )) and:

(1) S N is a union of all sets X for which there is w ∈ W such that X ∈ Nw. [Namely, S N is a union of all neighbourhoods].

(2) W = W1 ∪ W2, where W1 = {z ∈ W ; z ∈ T Nz} and W2 = {z ∈ W ; z∈ / S N}.

(3) X ∈ Nw and X ⊆ Y ⊆ S N ⇒ Y ∈ Nw.

(4) X ∈ Nw ⇒{z ∈ W1; X ∈ Nz} ∈ Nw.

Note that we have two kinds of worlds. Those which are in certain neighbourhood, are also in each of their own neighbourhoods. As for the worlds from W2, they have their neighbourhoods but they do not belong to any neighbourhood. As for the modal forcing, we deﬁne it in the following manner:

w ϕ ⇔ there is X ∈ Nw such that X ⊆ V (ϕ).

3.3. From neighbourhoods to general topologies. Let us take our new structure and introduce topology into it. We propose the following deﬁnition:

Lemma 3.6. Assume that M = hW, N , V i is a GTn -model. Then the set µ =

{X ⊆ S N ; w ∈ X ⇒ X ∈ Nw} forms a generalized topology with W as its universe. Equivalently, µ forms strong generalized topology with S N as its universe.

Proof. The proof is simple. Note that we assume that open sets are contained in S N .

The next lemma is simple but in some sense crucial:

Lemma 3.7. Assume that M = hW, N , V i is a GTn -model, µ = {X ⊆ S N ; w ∈

X ⇒ X ∈ Nw} is a generalized topology and S µ is the union of all open sets. Then S µ = S N .

Proof. (⊆) If w ∈ S µ, then there is Y ∈ µ such that w ∈ Y . But by the very deﬁnition of µ, Y ⊆ S N . 6 TOMASZ WITCZAK

(⊇) Suppose that w ∈ S N . Then w ∈ T Nw. Let us take any X ∈ Nw. Then X ⊆ S N and w ∈ X, so X is µ-open. Thus w ∈ S µ.

Now we can go to our transformation:

Theorem 3.8. Let M = hW, N , V i be a GTn -model. Then there exists pointwise equivalent GTF -model Mµ = hWµ, µ, F, Vµi.

Proof. Let Wµ = W, Vµ = V and for every w ∈ W , W ⊇ X ∈ Fw ⇔ X ∈ Nw.

Deﬁne µ as in Lemma 3.6. Then S µ = S Nw. Hence, F is indeed function from

Wµ into P (P (S µ)).

Now suppose that w ∈ S µ and X ∈ Fw. Hence, X ∈ Nw, w ∈ X and thus

X ∈ µ. On the other side, if w ∈ X and X ∈ µ, then X ∈ Nw = Fw. Now let us take w ∈ W \ S µ = W \ S N and suppose that X ∈ Fw = Nw. Then clearly

X ⊆ S µ and meta-implication ”w ∈ X ⇒ X ∈ Nw” becomes true because it is trivial. Thus we checked all expected properties of F. µ µ Let us deﬁne Nw for each w ∈ W like in Def. 3.4. Then Nw = Nw. µ (⊆) Assume that X ∈ Nw . Then X ⊆ S µ. Hence, X ⊆ S N . Moreover, there is

Ow ∈Fw such that Ow ⊆ X. Hence, Ow ∈ Nw. But then, by means of restriction

3 from Def. 3.5, X ∈ Nw.

(⊇) Assume that X ∈ Nw. Then X ⊆ S N = S µ. Let us consider Ow = {v ∈

S N ; X ∈ Nv}. Because of restriction 4 from Def. 3.5, Ow ∈ Nw, hence Ow ∈Fw.

If z ∈ Ow (which implies in particular that z ∈ S N ), then z ∈ T Nz ⊆ X. Thus

Ow ⊆ X. Now we can think about pointwise equivalency. We are concentrated only on the modal case. Assume that w ϕ. Hence, there is X ∈ Nw such that for µ each v ∈ X, v ϕ. From earlier considerations we have that X ∈ Nw , so there is

(open) Ow ∈Fw such that Ow ⊆ X ⊆ V (ϕ)= Vµ(ϕ). Thus, w µ ϕ. The other direction, starting from the assumption that w µ ϕ, is similar.

The next theorem states that reverse transformation is also possible.

Theorem 3.9. Let Mµ = hWµ, µ, F, Vµi be a GTF -model. Then there exists pointwise equivalent GTn -model M = hW, N µ, V i.

Proof. As earlier, assume that W = Wµ and Vµ = V . We must establish neighbourhoods in our topological setting. But we can do it exactly in the same way as GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 7 in the preceding theorems and deﬁnitions (recall Def. 3.4). Now me must check that N µ satisﬁes all the properties of neighbourhoods in the sense of GTn -frames. First, let us show that S µ = S N µ.

(⊆): If w ∈ S µ, then there is Ow ∈ µ such that w ∈ Ow. In particular, µ Ow ∈Fw. Hence, by means of Def. 3.4, Ow ∈ Nw . µ µ (⊇): Assume that w ∈ S N . Hence, there are v ∈ W, X ∈ Nv such that w ∈ X. But by the deﬁnition, X ⊆ S µ. µ µ Now suppose that w ∈ W, X ∈ Nw and X ⊆ Y ⊆ S N . Hence, there is

Ow ∈ Fw such that Ow ⊆ X ⊆ S µ. But also Y ⊆ S µ and of course Ow ⊆ Y . µ Hence, Y ∈ Nw . µ µ Assume that X ∈ Nw and consider S = {z ∈ W1; X ∈ Nz }. There is Ow ∈Fw such that Ow ⊆ X ⊆ S µ. However, S ⊆ X: take v ∈ S and recall the fact that µ v ∈ T Nv , hence v ∈ X. Moreover, S contains only (some) points from W1, so S ⊆ S µ.

Now we may go to the pointwise equivalency. Suppose that w µ ϕ. Hence, there is Ow ∈ Fw such that Ow ⊆ Vµ(ϕ) = V (ϕ) (in the last equation we used µ induction hypothesis). Then Ow ∈ Nw . Hence, w ϕ. The other direction, starting from the assumption that w ϕ, is similar.

3.4. Axioms and rules. Unfortunately, we do not have complete axiomatization of the logic induced by our semantics. Certainly, axioms M and 4 are true (i.e. they are satisﬁed in each world independently of valuation). On the other hand, axiom T does not hold: it is easy to build counter-model with at least one world w ∈ W \ S µ which satisﬁes ϕ but does not accept ϕ. We can list several regularities:

Lemma 3.10. In each GT -model Mµ = hWµ, µ, F, Vµi the following holds:

(1) If w µ ϕ for each w ∈ S µ, v ∈ W \ S µ and ∅ ∈F/ v, then v µ ♦ϕ, where ♦ϕ is a shortcut for ¬¬ϕ.

(2) If w µ ϕ for each w ∈ S µ, v ∈ W \ S µ and Fv 6= ∅, then v µ ϕ.

(3) If for each w ∈ W , Fw 6= ∅ and if ϕ holds in each world from S µ, then ϕ holds in each world from W . Consequently, standard RN also becomes true with this assumptions.

(4) If v ∈ W \ S µ, w ∈ S µ and Fv = Fw, then v µ ϕ ⇔ w ϕ for any ϕ from the set MOD which is built in the following way: i) for each formula 8 TOMASZ WITCZAK

γ, γ ∈ MOD, ii) α ∨ β, α ∧ β, α → β are all in MOD, where α, β are already in MOD.

Of course there are two speciﬁc cases in which it is possible to obtain completeness quite easily: 1. The case of strong frames, i.e. those in which W = S µ. In this situation our

GT -model corresponds to the strong GTn -model with W2 = ∅. As we can conclude from [11], this class coincides with logic MNT4 (i.e. there is a completeness result).

2. The case of frames in which Fw = ∅ for each w ∈ W \ S µ. Here we have (see [12]) completeness with respect to the logic MT4 . In this situation we can consider elements of W \ S µ as so-called impossible worlds: worlds in which ”everyting is possible and nothing is necessary” (that is, ♦ϕ holds for any ϕ and ϕ fails for any ϕ). It is noteworthy that in [12] the authors have shown that MT4 can be embedded in their Information Logic of Galois Connections (ILGC). This is a connection between non-normal modal logics and the theory of rough sets or approximate reasoning.

4. Generalized topo-bisimulations

In this section we introduce three notions of generalized topo-bisimulation between two GTF -models. They are based on the topo-bisimulation presented e.g. by Aiello et al. in [2]. However, this standard deﬁnition was adapted to our needs.

µ τ Deﬁnition 4.1. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are two GTF -models. We deﬁne generalized 0-topo-bisimulation as a non-empty relation T ⊆ W × W ′ such that if wT w′ (where w ∈ W, w′ ∈ W ′), then:

′ (1) w µ q ⇔ w τ q for any q ∈ P V . ′ (2) If w ∈ Ow ∈ µ, then there is Ow′ ∈ τ such that for each v ∈ Ow′ there ′ exists v ∈ Ow such that vT v . ′ (3) If w ∈ Ow′ ∈ τ, then there is Ow ∈ µ such that for each v ∈ Ow there ′ ′ exists v ∈ Ow′ such that vT v .

Such function is useful mostly for these worlds which are somewhere in S µ. The next notion is more general:

µ µ Deﬁnition 4.2. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are two GTF -models. We deﬁne generalized 1-topo-bisimulation as a non-empty relation T ⊆ W × W ′ such that if wT w′ (where w ∈ W, w′ ∈ W ′), then: GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 9

′ (1) w µ q ⇔ w τ q for any q ∈ P V . −1 ′ τ (2) If w ∈ Ow , where ∅ 6= Ow ∈ µ, then there is Ow ∈Fw′ such that for each ′ ′ v ∈ Ow′ there exists v ∈ Ow such that vT v . ′ −1 ′ µ (3) If w ∈ Ow′ , where ∅ 6= Ow ∈ τ, then there is Ow ∈Fw such that for each ′ ′ v ∈ Ow there exists v ∈ Ow′ such that vT v .

The third notion seems to be the most vague:

µ µ Deﬁnition 4.3. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are two GTF -models. We deﬁne generalized 2-topo-bisimulation as a non-empty relation T ⊆ W × W ′ such that if wT w′ (where w ∈ W, w′ ∈ W ′), then:

′ (1) w µ q ⇔ w τ q for any q ∈ P V −1 ′ τ (2) If w ∈ Ow , where ∅ 6= Ow ∈ µ, then there is Ow ∈Fw′ such that for each ′ −1 −1 ′ v ∈ Ow′ there exists v ∈ Ow such that vT v . ′ −1 ′ τ (3) If w ∈ Ow′ , where ∅ 6= Ow ∈ τ, then there is Ow ∈Fw such that for each −1 ′ −1 ′ v ∈ Ow there exists v ∈ Ow′ such that vT v .

Let us introduce some basic deﬁnitions concerning functions. The notions of (ordinary) continuity and openess are taken from [6]:

µ τ Deﬁnition 4.4. Assume that F1 = hWµ, µ, F i and F2 = hWτ , τ, F i are two generalized topological frames and f is a function from Wµ into Wτ . We say that f is:

′ −1 ′ • continuous ⇔ G ∈ τ ⇒ f (G ) ∈ µ • open ⇔ f(G) ∈ τ for each G ∈ µ. ′ τ −1 ′ µ ′ • F-continuous ⇔ G ∈Fw′ ⇒ f (G ) ∈Fw for any w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ such that f(w)= w′. τ µ ′ • F-open ⇔ f(G) ∈ Fw′ for each G ∈ Fw for any w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ such that f(w)= w′.

The following two theorems give us our expected relationship beetween bisimulations and functions introduced above.

µ τ Theorem 4.5. Assume that F1 = hWµ, µ, F i is a GTF -frame and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i is a GTF -model. Suppose that f is a continuous and open map between Wµ −1 and Wτ ; and for any q ∈ P V we set Vµ(q) = f (Vτ (q)). Then f is a 0-topo- µ bisimulation between M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2. 10 TOMASZ WITCZAK

Proof. We shall present only the ﬁrst part of the proof. Two other parts will are actually contained in the proof of the next theorem. ′ ′ Let f(w) = w , where w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ . First, assume that w µ q, so −1 ′ −1 w ∈ Vµ(q) = f (Vτ (q)). We know that f(w) = w ∈ f(f (Vτ (q))) = Vτ (q). ′ Hence w τ q. ′ ′ −1 Now suppose that w τ q. Hence, w ∈ Vτ (q) = f(f (Vτ (q)) = f(Vµ(q)). −1 ′ ′ Moreover, w ∈ f ({w }). From set theory we know that if {w } ⊆ f(Vµ(q)) −1 ′ −1 (which is true), then f ({w }) ⊆ f (f(Vµ(q)) = Vµ(q). Hence, w µ q.

µ τ Theorem 4.6. Assume that F1 = hWµ, µ, F i is a GTF -frame and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i is a GTF -model. Suppose that f is a F-continuous and F-open map between Wµ −1 and Wτ ; and for any q ∈ P V we set Vµ(q) = f (Vτ (q)). Then f is a 1-topo- µ bisimulation between M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2.

′ ′ Proof. Let f(w) = w , where w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ . The ﬁrst part of the proof is exactly the same as in Theorem 4.5. −1 As for the second one, suppose that w ∈ Ow , i.e. Ow ∈ Fw. We can say that ′ f(Ow) ∈ Fw′ (because f is F-open). Assume that v ∈ f(Ow). Of course there ′ must be certain v ∈ Ow such that f(v)= v . ′ −1 ′ ′ Third part is similar. Suppose that w ∈ Ow′ , i.e. Ow ∈Fw . We can say that −1 −1 f (Ow′ ) ∈ Fw (because f is F-continuous). Assume that v ∈ f (Ow′ ). Then −1 f(v) ∈ f(f (Ow′ )) = Ow′ .

The main beneﬁt of bisimulation is certain kind of ”logical similarity” between two models. It has been presented below in two theorems:

µ µ Theorem 4.7. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are ′ two GTF -models, T is a 0-bisimulation between them and there are w ∈ S µ, w ∈ ′ ′ S τ such that wT w . Then w and w satisfy the same formulas.

Proof. The proof is similar to the one for the next theorem (which is in some sense more general).

In the next theorem we speak about consistent models (frames). It means that each of their worlds is consistent: ∅ ∈F/ w. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 11

µ τ Theorem 4.8. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are two consistent GTF -models, T is a 1-bisimulation between them and there are ′ ′ ′ w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ such that wT w . Then w and w satisfy the same formulas.

Proof. The proof goes by induction on the complexity of formulas. If ϕ := q ∈ P V , then our thesis is clear. Boolean cases are simple.

Assume that ϕ := γ and w µ γ. There is certain Ow ∈ µ such that

µ ′ τ Ow ∈Fw and Ow ⊆ Vµ(γ). Thus, by means of 1-bisimulation, there is Ow ∈Fw′ ′ with expected properties. Let us take v ∈ Ow′ (we can do it because of consistency ′ of the model). Now we can ﬁnd v ∈ Ow such that vT v . By means of induction ′ ′ hypothesis, v τ γ. Then w τ γ. ′ ′ ′ τ Now suppose that w τ γ. There is Ow ∈ τ such that Ow ∈ Fw′ and

′ µ Ow ⊆ Vτ (γ). Thus, by means of 1-bisimulation, there is Ow ∈ Fw with expected ′ ′ properties. Let us consider v ∈ Ow. Now we can ﬁnd v ∈ Ow′ such that vT v . ′ Induction hypothesis allows us to conclude that v µ γ. Hence, w µ γ.

As for the 2-bisimulation, we shall not obtain analogous result for . However, it is possible to obtain it for new modality, which is in some sense more vague: −1 w •ϕ ⇔ there is Ow ∈Fw such that for any v ∈ Ow , v ϕ. Note that if we use this modality, then the axiom scheme •ϕ → ϕ becomes true in each GTF -model. Assume now that we replace by • and let us call corresponding models bGTF -models. Using this new language, we can prove the theorem below:

µ τ Theorem 4.9. Assume that M1 = hWµ, µ, F , Vµi and M2 = hWτ , τ, F , Vτ i are two consistent bGTF -models, T is a 2-bisimulation between them and there are ′ ′ ′ w ∈ Wµ, w ∈ Wτ such that wT w . Then w and w satisfy the same formulas.

Proof. The proof goes by induction. We present only the modal case. Assume that µ −1 ϕ := •γ and w µ •γ. Hence, there is Ow ∈ Fw such that Ow ⊆ Vµ(γ). Using ′ −1 ′ τ 2-bisimulation, we ﬁnd Ow ∈Fw′ with expected properties. Now we take v ∈ Ow′ −1 ′ and we ﬁnd suitable v ∈ Ow . Hence, vT v and for this reason they support the ′ ′ same formulas. In particular, v τ ϕ. Thus, we can say that w τ •ϕ. Similar ′ reasoning can be provided if we start from the assumption that w τ •ϕ. 12 TOMASZ WITCZAK

At ﬁrst glance, this new operator seems to be somewhat artiﬁcial. However, we can show that if we replace by •, then certain subclass of bGTF -models can be treated as strong GT -model.

Deﬁnition 4.10. Assume that F = hW, µ, Fi is bGTF -frame. We say that M = hW, µ, F, Vµi is in-fact-strong (i.f.s.) bGTF -model iﬀ modality in our language is interpreted as • and the following additional conditions hold for any w ∈ W \ S µ:

(1) if X ∈Fw and X ⊆ Y ∈ µ, then Y ∈Fw (superset condition).

(2) if Si∈J Xi ∈ Fw, where Xi ∈ µ for any i ∈ J, then there is k ∈ J such −1 that w ∈ Xk (union partition condition).

(3) Fw 6= ∅.

Now we can formulate the following theorem:

Theorem 4.11. For any i.f.s. bGTF -model there exists pointwise equivalent sGT -model (with modality interpreted as ).

Proof. Having generalized topology µ, we must establish new generalized topology τ in such a way that the whole space becomes τ-open. Hence, we are looking for ′ ′ ′ M = hW ,τ,Vτ i, where we can presuppose that W = W and Vτ = Vµ. Let us assume that Y ∈ τ ⇔ Y = ∅ or Y = X−1 for certain X ∈ µ. We must check properties of gen. top. First, ∅ ∈ τ (by the very deﬁnition). What about arbitrary unions? Let J 6= ∅ and Yi be τ-open for any i ∈ J. We may assume that −1 there is at least one k ∈ J such that Yk 6= ∅. Consider Si∈J Yi = Si∈J Xi (where −1 Xi = Yi and Xi ∈ µ for each i ∈ J). We shall show that this set is equal with −1 (Si∈J Xi) :

(⊆) Let w ∈ Si∈J Yi. Hence, there are k ∈ J and Yk such that w ∈ Yk. Therefore −1 there is Xk ∈ µ such that Yk = Xk . Thus Xk ∈ Fw. Moreover, Xk ⊆ Si∈J Xi.

But from the basic properties of gen. top. Si∈J Xi ∈ µ. By the superset condition −1 we have that Si∈J Xi ∈Fw. Thus w ∈ (Si∈J Xi) . −1 (⊇) Let w ∈ (Si∈J Xi) . Hence, Si∈J Xi ∈ Fw. By the partition condition, −1 −1 there is k ∈ J such that Xk ∈Fw. Hence, w ∈ Xk ⊆ Si∈J Xi .

Regarding the whole space: for each w ∈ W , Fw 6= ∅. Hence, for each w ∈ W −1 −1 there is Xw such that Xw ∈ Fw, i.e. w ∈ Xw . Thus W ⊆ Sw∈W Xw = −1 (Sw∈W Xw) and the other inclusion is trivial. Finally, W is τ-open. Now let us go to the pointwise equivalency. We shall prove only the modal case which should be written as such: w µ •ϕ ⇔ w τ ϕ. Assume that w µ •ϕ. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 13

−1 Hence, there is X ∈ Fw such that for any v ∈ X , v µ ϕ. By induction −1 hypothesis, v τ ϕ. But X ∈ τ, so we can say that there is Z ∈ τ (namely, −1 Z = X ) such that w ∈ Z and for any v ∈ Z, v τ ϕ. Thus w τ ϕ.

Now suppose that w τ ϕ. Hence, there is Z ∈ τ such that w ∈ Z and for any v ∈ Z, v τ ϕ. By induction, v µ ϕ. But there must be X ∈ µ such that −1 −1 −1 Z = X . Thus w ∈ X , i. e. X ∈Fw. This means that w µ •ϕ.

The next theorem is much simpler to prove:

′ ′ Theorem 4.12. Assume that M = hW ,τ,Vτ i is an sGT -model. Then there exists pointwise equivalent i.f.s. bGTF -model M = hW, µ, F, Vµi.

Proof. (sketch) It is easy to check that sGT -model is just a special case of i.f.s. bGTF -model. We should just identify Fw with the family of all open sets con- taining w (for each w ∈ W ). It is clear that superset condition holds. Obviously,

Fw 6= ∅. Concerning union partition condition, we may take an arbitrary k ∈ J because w is in each of its open neighbourhoods. Note that in sGT -frame X = X−1 for any X ⊆ S τ = W .

5. GTf -models

In this section we shall slightly change the deﬁnition of generalized topological frame. Moreover, we shall work with two modal operators.

Deﬁnition 5.1. We deﬁne GTf -model as a quintuple Mµ = hWµ, µ, f, N , Vµi such that µ is a generalized topology on W , V is a valuation from P V to P (W ) and W consists of two separate subsets Y1 and Y2:

(1) If w ∈ Y1, then we link w with certain v ∈ S µ (by means of a function f, i.e. f is a function from Y1 into S µ).

(2) If w ∈ Y2 then we associate w with certain Nw, hence N is a function from

Y2 into P (P (W )).

As for the forcing of modal formulas, the following interpretation is given:

Deﬁnition 5.2. In each GTf -model Mµ = hWµ, µ, f, N , Vµi, for any w ∈ W and for any ϕ:

(1) w µ ϕ ⇔ there exists X ∈ µ such that w ∈ X and for any v ∈ X,

v µ ϕ.

(2) w µ ϕ ⇔ 14 TOMASZ WITCZAK

(a) There is X ∈ µ such that f(w) ∈ X and for any v ∈ X, v µ ϕ; iﬀ

w ∈ Y1.

(b) V (ϕ) ∈ Nw; iﬀ w ∈ Y2.

Let us deﬁne system G0 as the following set of axiom schemes and rules: CPC ∪

{ M , T , 4 , RE , RE , MP }, where CPC means all modal instances of the classical propositional tautologies. As we can see, -free fragment of this logic is just MT4 (with as modality). At the same time, -free fragment is just the weakest modal logic (with respect to ) in which we do not expect more than the rule of extensionality. Now we can deﬁne appropriate canonical model:

Deﬁnition 5.3. Canonical GTf -model is a structure hWµ, µ, f, N , Vµi, where:

(1) Wµ is the set of maximal theories of G0 .

(2) Vµ is a function from P V into P (W ) such that for any q ∈ P V , V (q) = {w ∈ W ; q ∈ W }. (3) µ is a subfamily of W , namely the union of all basic sets, where single basic set ϕ = {w ∈ W ; ϕ ∈ w} 1. c (4) Y1 is a set of all such theories from W for which there is a theory v ∈ S µ such that for any formula ϕ we have: ϕ ∈ v ⇔ ϕ ∈ w.

(5) Y2 = W \ Y1.

(6) f is a function from Y1 into S µ such that f(w)= v where v is as in (4).

(7) N is a function from Y2 into P (P (W )) deﬁned as: Nw = {ϕ; ϕ ∈ w}. b Using Lindenbaum theorem and rule of -extensionality, we can easily prove the following two lemmas:

Lemma 5.4. Let Wµ be a collection of all maximal theories of G0 and let {z ∈

W ; ϕ ∈ z} = {z ∈ W ; ψ ∈ z}. Then ϕ → ψ ∈ G0 .

Lemma 5.5. In a canonical GTf -model we have the following property: for each maximal theory w, if {z ∈ W ; ϕ ∈ z} ∈ Nw and {z ∈ W ; ϕ ∈ z} = {z ∈ W ; ψ ∈ z}, then ψ ∈ w.

Now we can show the fundamental theorem referring to the question of completeness.

1 In general γb = {w ∈ W ; γ ∈ w}. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 15

Theorem 5.6. In a canonical GTf -model, for any γ and for any theory w, we have:

w µ γ ⇔ γ ∈ w.

Proof. The proof goes by induction. If γ := ϕ then we can repeat corresponding fragment from [12] (note that in this case we are interested only in worlds from S µ). Hence, assume that γ := ϕ. (⇐) We have two options:

(1) w ∈ Y1. Assume that ϕ ∈ w. Then ϕ ∈ u = f(w). Hence u ∈ ϕ. This c is a basic set of topology µ, hence it belongs to µ. By the axiom T (i.e. ϕ → ϕ) we state that ϕ ⊆ ϕ. Hence there is X = ϕ such that X ∈ µ, c b c u ∈ X and for all v ∈ X we have ϕ ∈ v. By induction hypothesis it means

that v µ ϕ. Hence u µ ϕ. But this means that w µ ϕ.

(2) w ∈ Y2. Assume that ϕ ∈ w. Then (by the deﬁnition of N ) we have that

{z ∈ W ; ϕ ∈ z} = ϕ ∈ Nw. By induction hypothesis ϕ = {z ∈ W ; z µ b b ϕ} ∈ Nw. Hence w µ ϕ.

(⇒) Again we have two possibilities:

(1) w ∈ Y1. Assume that w µ ϕ. Hence there is X ∈ µ such that u = f(w) ∈

X and for any v ∈ X, v µ ϕ. If X ∈ µ, then X can be considered as a sum of several basic sets. Among them there must be set β (for certain c formula β) such that u ∈ β. Of course β ⊆ X, hence for each v ∈ β c c we have v µ ϕ. By induction hypothesis ϕ ∈ v. Hence β ⊆ ϕ. c b Now we can say that β → ϕ is a theorem. Assume the contrary. Then there must be certain maximal, consistent theory to which both β and ¬ϕ belong. But we know that β ⊆ ϕ. This is contradiction. c b Now let us go back to the main part of the proof. We use RM to prove implication β → ϕ. Using axiom 4 , we obtain β → ϕ. This means that u ∈ β ⊆ ϕ. Hence, ϕ ∈ u. But u = f(w). Then c c ϕ ∈ w.

(2) w ∈ Y2. Let us assume that w µ ϕ. Hence {z ∈ W ; z µ ϕ} ∈ Nw. By

induction hypothesis {z ∈ W ; ϕ ∈ z} ∈ Nw. By the deﬁnition of N and Lem. 5.5 it means that ϕ ∈ w.

16 TOMASZ WITCZAK

Of course, G0 is not a very useful system because it does not give us any connection between two modalities. Hence, let us add ϕ → ϕ to G0 (this new system will be called G1 ). Let us now sketch brieﬂy how we deﬁne appropriate subclass of frames (and corresponding canonical model).

Deﬁnition 5.7. We deﬁne GTf2 -model as a structure arising from GTf -model but with the following stipulations:

(1) S µ ⊆ Y1. (2) For any w ∈ S µ, f is identity, i.e. f(w)= w.

Clearly, our new axiom is satisﬁed in this environment. Let us check this fact: assume that w ϕ. By the deﬁnition, it means that there is X ∈ µ such that w ∈ X and for any v ∈ X, v ϕ. In particular, it means also that w ∈ S µ ⊆ Y1. Then f(w)= w. This all allows us to say that w ϕ.

In a canonical GTf2 -model we consider the set W, defined as the set of all theories w ∈ W such that for any ϕ: ϕ ∈ w ⇒ ϕ ∈ w. Note that in each G0 - theory the converse implication is always true (because of the new axiom which has been added). Hence, for any w ∈ W we have: ϕ ∈ w ⇔ ∈ w. Now let us define µ in a manner similar to the one from canonical GTf -model, but assuming that µ is a subfamily of W. Hence, S µ ⊆ W ⊆ Y1. Finally, we assume that f is identity when restricted to S µ. This leads us to the conclusion that G1 -logic is complete with respect to the class of all GTf2 -frames. Let us tell a few words about the properties of possible worlds in this framework. If w ∈ W \ S µ and there is ϕ for which w ϕ → ϕ, then w 1 ϕ. Of course in this situation we also have w ϕ → ϕ. If w ∈ S µ, then for any ϕ we have w ϕ → ϕ. For convenience, let us introduce possibilities and ♦ defined as usual (in a dual manner to and , respectively). If w ∈ Y2, then we cannot say that for any ϕ, w ϕ → ϕ (we did not assume that if X ∈ Nw, then −X/∈ Nw). If w ∈ Y1, then for any ϕ the formula in question is satisfied. However, if w ∈ Y1 \ S µ, then it may be (for certain ψ) that w 1 ψ → ♦ψ and w 1 ψ → ♦ψ. On the other hand, we are aware of the fact that such distinctions are not characterizations in a proper logical sense. In fact, it is easy to notice that G1 - logic is complete also with respect to this subclass of GTf2 -models which is defined by the condition S µ = Y1. GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS 17

References

[1] H. Ahmet, T. Mehmet, Peritopological Spaces and Bisimulations, Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 50 (2015), pp. 67-81. [2] M. Aiello, J. van Benthem, G. Bezhanishvili, Reasoning about space: The modal way, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(6):889920. [3] T. Witczak, Generalized topological spaces with associating function, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00460.pdf [4] R. Baskaran, Generalized nets in generalized topological spaces, Journal of Advanced Research in Pure Mathematics, 2011, pp. 1-7. [5] J. v. Benthem, G. Bezhanishvili, Modal logics of space, http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Reports/PP-2006-08.text.pdf [6] A.´ Császár, Generalized topology, generalized continuity, Acta Mathematica Hungarica, 96(4) (2002), 351 - 357. [7] J. P. Doignon, J. C. Falmagne Knowledge spaces and learning spaces, https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06757. [8] A.´ Császár, Generalized open sets, Acta Mathematica Hungarica, 75 (1997), 65-87. [9] A. P. Dhana Balan, P. Padma, Separation spaces in generalized topology, International Jour- nal of Mathematics Research, Volume 9, Number 1 (2017), pp. 65 - 74. [10] J. Halpern, R. Pucella, Dealing with Logical Omniscence: Expresiveness and Pragmatics, https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0702011.pdf [11] A. Indrzejczak, Labelled tableau calculi for weak modal logics, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Volume 36: 3/4 (2007), pp. 159 - 171. [12] J. Järvinen, M. Kondo, J. Kortelainen, Logics from Galois connections, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 49, Issue 3, November 2008, pages 595 - 606. [13] E. Korczak-Kubiak, A. Loranty, R. J. Pawlak, Generalized (topological) metric spaces. From nowhere density to infinite games, http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/24747/89-104-korczak.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. [14] E. Pacuit, Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic, Springer International Publishing AG 2017. [15] M. S. Sarsak, New separation axioms in generalized topological spaces, Acta Math. Hungar., 132 (3) (2011), 244 - 252. [16] H. Soldano, A modal view on abstract learning and reasoning, Ninth Symposium on Abstrac- tion, Reformulation, and Approximation, SARA 2011. [17] M. R. Ahmadi Zand, R. Khayyeri, Two separation axioms in Generalized Topological Spaces, The 45th Annual Iranian Mathematics Conference, August 26-29 2014.

Institute of Mathematics, University of Silesia, Bankowa 14, 40-007 Katowice, Poland E-mail address: [email protected]