Formula or Operator not definable proof with Bisimulation in Modal Logic












2












$begingroup$


I have been searching for literature about showing that a property is not modally definable.



I found these two examples on the Web where the author uses the disjoint union for constructing two models that are bisimilar for showing that the operator global box is not definable.
Global Box



But later on the author also shows that asymmetry is not definable by two models that are bisimilar again but this time without the disjoint union.
Asymmetry



My question is how to define two models that are bisimilar in order to prove that a property is not definable. I know that the property must hold in one model but not the other, but how to achieve this?






logic modal-logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    I have been searching for literature about showing that a property is not modally definable.



    I found these two examples on the Web where the author uses the disjoint union for constructing two models that are bisimilar for showing that the operator global box is not definable.
    Global Box



    But later on the author also shows that asymmetry is not definable by two models that are bisimilar again but this time without the disjoint union.
    Asymmetry



    My question is how to define two models that are bisimilar in order to prove that a property is not definable. I know that the property must hold in one model but not the other, but how to achieve this?






    logic modal-logic







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      I have been searching for literature about showing that a property is not modally definable.



      I found these two examples on the Web where the author uses the disjoint union for constructing two models that are bisimilar for showing that the operator global box is not definable.
      Global Box



      But later on the author also shows that asymmetry is not definable by two models that are bisimilar again but this time without the disjoint union.
      Asymmetry



      My question is how to define two models that are bisimilar in order to prove that a property is not definable. I know that the property must hold in one model but not the other, but how to achieve this?






      logic modal-logic







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I have been searching for literature about showing that a property is not modally definable.



      I found these two examples on the Web where the author uses the disjoint union for constructing two models that are bisimilar for showing that the operator global box is not definable.
      Global Box



      But later on the author also shows that asymmetry is not definable by two models that are bisimilar again but this time without the disjoint union.
      Asymmetry



      My question is how to define two models that are bisimilar in order to prove that a property is not definable. I know that the property must hold in one model but not the other, but how to achieve this?






      logic modal-logic




      logic modal-logic






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 26 '18 at 15:11







      jennifer ruurs

















      asked Dec 26 '18 at 14:55









      jennifer ruursjennifer ruurs

      294




      294






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          There is no general principle of construction such models. In every particular situation you have to use creativity. But some facts can help you. Namely, you should keep in mind that aforementioned disjoint unions, upward-closed submodels (sometimes called generated submodels) and p-morphisms preserve modal satisfability (by means of bisimulation). As you pointed, in the former example the disjoint union was used, while in the later a p-morphism was constructed. In general, it's not enough to use only these three things, but for textbooks examples it suffices.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053000%2fformula-or-operator-not-definable-proof-with-bisimulation-in-modal-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1












            $begingroup$

            There is no general principle of construction such models. In every particular situation you have to use creativity. But some facts can help you. Namely, you should keep in mind that aforementioned disjoint unions, upward-closed submodels (sometimes called generated submodels) and p-morphisms preserve modal satisfability (by means of bisimulation). As you pointed, in the former example the disjoint union was used, while in the later a p-morphism was constructed. In general, it's not enough to use only these three things, but for textbooks examples it suffices.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              There is no general principle of construction such models. In every particular situation you have to use creativity. But some facts can help you. Namely, you should keep in mind that aforementioned disjoint unions, upward-closed submodels (sometimes called generated submodels) and p-morphisms preserve modal satisfability (by means of bisimulation). As you pointed, in the former example the disjoint union was used, while in the later a p-morphism was constructed. In general, it's not enough to use only these three things, but for textbooks examples it suffices.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                There is no general principle of construction such models. In every particular situation you have to use creativity. But some facts can help you. Namely, you should keep in mind that aforementioned disjoint unions, upward-closed submodels (sometimes called generated submodels) and p-morphisms preserve modal satisfability (by means of bisimulation). As you pointed, in the former example the disjoint union was used, while in the later a p-morphism was constructed. In general, it's not enough to use only these three things, but for textbooks examples it suffices.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                There is no general principle of construction such models. In every particular situation you have to use creativity. But some facts can help you. Namely, you should keep in mind that aforementioned disjoint unions, upward-closed submodels (sometimes called generated submodels) and p-morphisms preserve modal satisfability (by means of bisimulation). As you pointed, in the former example the disjoint union was used, while in the later a p-morphism was constructed. In general, it's not enough to use only these three things, but for textbooks examples it suffices.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 28 '18 at 17:22









                Ilya VlasovIlya Vlasov

                170213




                170213






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053000%2fformula-or-operator-not-definable-proof-with-bisimulation-in-modal-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Ellipse (mathématiques)

                    Image
                    Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
                    Read more

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
                    Read more

                    Mont Emei

                    Image
                    Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
                    Read more