76

APPENDIX A
Table of Modal Theorems

K D T B S4 S5

(->

][

T ( ) ; T () B ( ); B ( ) S4 ( ); S4 () S5 ( ); S5 ( )

Table of Theorems and their Powers K D T B S4 S5 PC, Nec., MN, K , K PC, Nec., MN, K , K, D PC, Nec., MN, K , K, D, T , T PC, Nec., MN, K , K, D, T , T, B , B PC, Nec., MN, K , K, D, T , T, S4 , S4 PC, Nec., MN, K , K, D, T , T, B , B, S4 , S4, S5 , S5

Legend: PC- Propositional Calculus/ Classical logic Nec.- Necessitation MN- Modal Negation

77

Proof ( ~ ~) B Theorem: 1. Prove: ~ ~ 2. ~~ 3. ~~ 4. ~ ~ 5. ~ ~ S5 Theorem: 1. Prove: ~ ~ 2. ~~ 3. ~~ 4. ~~ 5. ~ ~ 6. ~ ~ Given Direct proof 1 DN 2 T 3 S5 3 MN 4 MN Given Direct proof 1 DN 2B 3 MN 4 MN

78

APPENDIX B

ON SET THEORY Zermelo- Fraenkel Set Theoretic Axioms 1: Axiom 1: Extensionality- If two sets have the same members, then they are identical. xy[z(zx zy) x=y] that are disjoint from x. Axiom 3: Axiom of Subsets- For any set a, there is a subset of a consisting of just those members of a that satisfy the condition of . Axiom 4: Empty Set Axiom- There is a set with no members. We shall call this set .
1

Axiom 2: Foundation- If x has any members, then it has members

Quoted from: Graham Oppy. Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity. Cambridge University Press: 2006; and Wolfram MathWorld entry on Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html) accessed March 13, 2012; and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/ZF.html) accessed March 13, 2012

79

xy(y x)
and b.

Axiom 5: Pair Set Axiom- There is a set whose only members are a

xyzw(wz w=x w=y)

the subsets of a.

Axiom 6: Power Set Axiom- There is a set whose members are all of

xyz[zy zx)

Axiom 7: Sum Set Axiom- To each set a there corresponds a set whose members are exactly the members of the members of a. Axiom 8: Axiom of Infinity- There is a set that has the empty setas a member, and is such that if x is a member, then so is x [union] {x}. This axiom entails that there are infinitely many sets.

x[x & y(yx {y,{y}}x)]

Axiom 9: Axiom of Replacement- If F is a function, then for any X there exists a set Y = F(x) = [F(x) : x X].

Axiom 10: Axiom of Choice- If z is a set of non- empty sets that are

80

pairwise disjoint, then there exists a choice set u which has exactly one member in common with each member z.

81

APPENDIX C

COMMENTARIES

The following accounts a critical commentary and suggested areas of concern from Prof. Gerald Pio Franco on this thesis, in bulleted form: 1. Modal operators are not quantifiers. 2. Note the distinction between actual and potential infinities in the discussion of the Many Worlds Interpretation. 3. Modal logic is an extension, and not necessarily, a deviation from classical logic. 4. Infinity is a postulate of set theory. 5. There are systems of modal logic that are consistent and complete. Godels Theorem does not apply to such cases (note: S5 Completeness Theorem proven by Saul Kripke). 6. Relate how Leibnizian concept of possible worlds are pertinent in

82

this study. To which the researcher addressed her answers: 1. Modal operators are indeed not quantifiers, yet they are in both external operators. The concept of modal operators is reduced for simplicitys sake, since the operation Modal Negation [MN] follows the same principle as that of the operators under Modal Propositional Logic. 2. A brief passage in Chapter III addressed this concern; the researcher does not discount the fact that there is cognitively no such thing as an actual infinity. However, given that the premise of this study is leaning towards Platonism, she wishes to put forth the idea of hierarchies of infinitiesderived from the notion that there really exist an actual infinity which is far too incomprehensible given our finite capacities. 3. Modal logic being an extension also entitled it with the advantages and disadvantages of classical logic. A discussion on reasoning and logic can be found on Chapters II and III. 4. Infinity in this case is treated the same methodology Cantor used

83

to formulate his principle. Assigning for instance a number for every given possible worlds, we are now eligible to subscribe to set theory and its corresponding modal logic limitations (by virtue of ZFs axiom of choice). Hence we can postulate a hierarchy of infinities analogous to the degree/ strength of the prevailing theorem. 5. Granted that Godels Theorem does not apply to S5, it is nevertheless still delimiting. The very notion of quantifying worlds as to that which subscribe to S5 already marginalizes those worlds which does not (this is not in accordance to possible worlds as discussed in its quantum mechanics counterpart, we emphasize here that this is now delving in the realm of possible world semantics) subscribe to S5. Albeit that S5 is not infringed by Godels Theorem which so far had crippled weaker axioms, its property of being a logical axiom still indicates that there are avenues of logic it delimits, in so far as it is an extension of classical logic. - it is also to be noted that Modal Propositions does not accept all propositional calculus from classical logic. For instance,

84

hypothetical syllogism (not quantified by modal operators) is not considered a valid proof in this regard, yet some special rules (such as ~ (P Q) ~P) is allowed.