GENERALIZED TOPOLOGICAL SEMANTICS FOR WEAK MODAL LOGICS TOMASZ WITCZAK Abstract. Generalized topological spaces are not necessarily closed under finite intersections. Moreover, the whole universe does not need to be open. We use modified version of this framework to establish certain models for non- normal modal logics. We consider at least two approaches to this topic, wherein one of them is based on the interplay of two operators, both reflecting the idea of necessity. The second one leads to the quite known logics MT4 and MNT4 . We obtain some completeness results and we prove correspondence between different classes of frames. Also, three types of bisimulation are investigated. 1. Introduction Topological notions are very useful in formal logic. They form bridge between possible-world semantics (which can be considered as somewhat abstract) and well- known mathematical objects (like real line, real plane or Cantor set). Topology al- lows us to discuss various properties of possible-world frames (depending on axioms of separation or on the notions of density, compactness etc.). Moreover, sometimes these properties can be characterized by means of specific formulas. On the other hand, topology is rather strong notion. For example, topological semantics for modal logics leads us to systems not weaker than S4 . They are equivalent with the so-called S4 neighbourhood frames (see [14]). However, neigh- arXiv:1904.06099v5 [math.LO] 27 May 2020 bourhoods are most frequently used with non-normal logics, sometimes very weak. The problem is that in topology neighbourhood is very rigorous notion, while in possible-worlds semantics it is just an arbitrary (maybe even empty) collection of these worlds which are assigned to the given world w. For this reason, it is difficult to speak about topological semantics for logics weaker than S4 , not to mention non-normal systems. Hence, we use the concept of generalized topological spaces analysed by Cs´asz´ar in [6]. It is quite natural: the author discarded superset axiom (i.e. the whole universe may not be open) and he assumed that his family is not closed under finite intersections. 1 2 TOMASZ WITCZAK One should be aware that Cs´asz´ar’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<b}, µ is a collection of all unions which belong to Λ. 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.