Lyndon interpolation property for extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ and intermediate propositional logics

Taishi Kurahashi¹¹1Email: [email protected] ²²2Graduate School of System Informatics, Kobe University, 1-1 Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe 657-8501, Japan.

Abstract

We study the Lyndon interpolation property (LIP) and the uniform Lyndon interpolation property (ULIP) for extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ and intermediate propositional logics. We prove that among the 18 consistent normal modal logics of finite height extending $\mathbf{S4}$ known to have CIP, 11 logics have LIP and 7 logics do not. We also prove that for intermediate propositional logics, the Craig interpolation property, LIP, and ULIP are equivalent.

1 Introduction

The Craig Interpolation Theorem was first proved by Craig [2] for classical first-order predicate logic, and has been studied for many logics. Let $v(\varphi)$ denote the set of all propositional variables contained in a propositional formula $\varphi$ . We say that a propositional logic $L$ has the Craig interpolation property (CIP) iff for any formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$ , if $L\vdash\varphi\to\psi$ , then there exists a formula $\rho$ such that $v(\rho)\subseteq v(\varphi)\cap v(\psi)$ , $L\vdash\varphi\to\rho$ , and $L\vdash\rho\to\psi$ . CIP has been extensively investigated in modal and intermediate propositional logics. In particular, Maksimova [12] proved that there are exactly seven consistent intermediate propositional logics having CIP. They are classical propositional logic $\mathbf{Cl}$ , $\mathbf{LS}$ , $\mathbf{LV}$ , $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ , the Gödel–Dummett logic $\mathbf{LC}$ , the Jankov logic $\mathbf{KC}$ , and intuitionistic propositional logic $\mathbf{Int}$ ³³3For the names of these logics, we adopt those presented in Gabbay and Maksimova’s book [5].. Moreover, Maksimova proved that there are at most 36 consistent normal extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ having CIP, and that at least 30 consistent logics among them have CIP (see [5, 16]). In particular, there are exactly 18 consistent normal modal logics of finite height extending $\mathbf{S4}$ and having CIP (see Table 1⁴⁴4See Gabbay and Maksimova [5] for the detailed definitions of the logics included in the table).

Lyndon [11] proved that classical first-order predicate logic enjoys a stronger interpolation property. Let $v^{+}(\varphi)$ (resp. $v^{-}(\varphi)$ ) be the set of all propositional variables occurring in a propositional formula $\varphi$ positively (resp. negatively). We say that a propositional logic $L$ has the Lyndon interpolation property (LIP) iff for any formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$ , if $L\vdash\varphi\to\psi$ , then there exists a formula $\rho$ such that $v^{\circ}(\rho)\subseteq v^{\circ}(\varphi)\cap v^{\circ}(\psi)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ , $L\vdash\varphi\to\rho$ , and $L\vdash\rho\to\psi$ . LIP for extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ has been studied by Maksimova [15, 17], Fitting [3], and Kuznets [7, 8]. It is also verifiable that Shimura’s proofs of CIP for some extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ also work with respect to LIP [22]⁵⁵5Shimura proved that CIP of $\mathbf{S4.4}$ , $\mathbf{GW}$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ follows from that of $\mathbf{S5}$ , $\mathbf{Triv}$ , and $\mathbf{S5}$ , respectively. It is easily shown that his proofs also show that LIP of $\mathbf{S4.4}$ , $\mathbf{GW}$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ follows from that of $\mathbf{S5}$ , $\mathbf{Triv}$ , and $\mathbf{S5}$ , respectively. The first explicit proof of LIP for $\mathbf{GW}$ was presented in Maksimova [17].. Among the 30 logics known to have CIP, it has been proved that 12 logics actually have LIP ⁶⁶6These 12 logics are $\mathbf{Triv}$ [15], $\mathbf{S5}$ [3], $\mathbf{GW.2}$ [15], $\mathbf{S4.4}$ [22], $\mathbf{GW}$ [22, 17], $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ [22], $\mathbf{S4.2}$ [7], $\mathbf{S4.1.2}$ [15], $\mathbf{Grz.2}$ [17], $\mathbf{S4}$ [3, 15], $\mathbf{S4.1}$ [15], and $\mathbf{Grz}$ [17]. and 4 logics do not. LIP for intermediate propositional logics has been studied by Maksimova [15, 17] and Kuznets and Lellmann [9, 10]. Among these 7 logics known to have CIP, LIP for the six logics other than $\mathbf{LV}$ has already been proved⁷⁷7Maksimova [17] explicitly mentioned that LIP of $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ immediately follows from that of $\mathbf{GW}$ . Even earlier, although implicitly, Shimura’s results also yield the LIP of $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ . and the problem of LIP for $\mathbf{LV}$ was open (see Maksimova [17] and Table 2).

Logic	CIP	LIP
$\Gamma(\mathbf{Cl},1,0)$ , $\mathbf{Triv}$	Maksimova [13]	Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{Cl},2,0)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{Cl},\omega,0)$ , $\mathbf{S5}$	Schumm [20]	Fitting [3]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,1)$ , $\mathbf{GW.2}$	Schumm [20]	Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,\omega)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ This paper (Theorem 9.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$	Maksimova [13]	This paper (Theorem 6.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},\omega,1)$ , $\mathbf{S4.4}$	Schumm [20]	Shimura [22]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,1)$ , $\mathbf{GV}$	Maksimova [13]	This paper (Theorem 7.1)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,2)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,\omega)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ This paper (Theorem 9.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$	Maksimova [13]	This paper (Theorem 7.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$	Maksimova [13]	This paper (Theorem 7.3)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,1)$ , $\mathbf{GW}$	Schumm [20]	Shimura [22]; Maksimova [17]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,2)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ Maksimova [15]
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)$	Maksimova [13]	$\times$ This paper (Theorem 9.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$	Maksimova [13]	This paper (Theorem 8.2)
$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$	Schumm [20]	Shimura [22]

Table 1: CIP and LIP for consistent normal modal logics of finite height extending

\mathbf{S4}

In the present paper, we focus on the 18 extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ of finite height listed in Table 1. The first goal of this paper is to provide a complete description concerning LIP for these logics. We prove that five of them have LIP and three do not. Then, we conclude that among these 18 logics, 11 logics have LIP and 7 logics do not (see Table 1). Our strategy for proving LIP for these logics is to prove a stronger property, the uniform Lyndon interpolation property. We say that a propositional logic $L$ has the uniform Lyndon interpolation property (ULIP) iff for any formula $\varphi$ and any finite sets $P^{+},P^{-}$ of propositional variables, there exists a formula $\theta$ satisfying the following three conditions:

1.

$L\vdash\varphi\to\theta$ ,
2.

$v^{\circ}(\theta)\subseteq v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ ,
3.

for any formula $\psi$ with $L\vdash\varphi\to\psi$ and $v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ , we have $L\vdash\theta\to\psi$ .

Here, $\theta$ is called a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $(\varphi,P^{+},P^{-})$ in $L$ . ULIP is a simultaneous strengthening of LIP and the uniform interpolation property (UIP), and the notion ULIP was introduced in [6]. In that paper, by extending the semantic technique for proving UIP developed by Visser [23], it was proved that the modal logics such as $\mathbf{K}$ , $\mathbf{KT}$ , $\mathbf{KB}$ , $\mathbf{GL}$ , and $\mathbf{Grz}$ have ULIP. We say that a logic $L$ is locally tabular iff for any finite set $P$ of propositional variables, there are finitely many formulas built from variables in $P$ up to $L$ -provable equivalence. It is known that LIP and ULIP are equivalent for every locally tabular logic (cf. [6]). Since the logics in Table 1 are all locally tabular, to prove LIP for these logics, we will adopt the method of proving stronger ULIP.

We also discuss LIP and ULIP for intermediate propositional logics. The problem of LIP for the modal logic $\mathbf{GV}$ was stated to be open in Maksimova [17], but in this paper, by proving LIP for $\mathbf{GV}$ , we immediately obtain LIP for the intermediate logic $\mathbf{LV}$ . From this, we conclude that CIP and LIP are equivalent for intermediate propositional logics. Since the logics $\mathbf{Cl}$ , $\mathbf{LS}$ , $\mathbf{LV}$ , $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ , and $\mathbf{LC}$ are known to be locally tabular (cf. [1, p. 428]), they are shown to enjoy ULIP. ULIP for $\mathbf{Int}$ follows immediately from ULIP for $\mathbf{Grz}$ . In the present paper, we prove ULIP for $\mathbf{Grz.2}$ , which implies that $\mathbf{KC}$ also has ULIP. From these investigations, we also conclude that CIP and ULIP are equivalent for intermediate propositional logics (see Table 2).

Logic

CIP

LIP

UIP

ULIP

\mathbf{Cl}

Craig [2]

Lyndon [11]

\checkmark

\checkmark

\mathbf{LS}

Maksimova [12]

Maksimova [15]

\checkmark

\checkmark

\mathbf{LV}

Maksimova [12]

This paper

(Corollary 10.4)

\checkmark

\checkmark

\mathbf{LP}_{2}

Maksimova [12]

Shimura [22]

Maksimova [17]

\checkmark

\checkmark

\mathbf{LC}

Maksimova [12]

Kuznets and

Lellmann [9]

\checkmark

\checkmark

\mathbf{KC}

Gabbay [4]

Maksimova [15]

Maksimova [17]

This paper

(Corollary 10.12)

\mathbf{Int}

Schütte [21]

Maksimova [15]

Pitts [19]

This paper

(Corollary 10.8)

Table 2: Interpolation properties for intermediate propositional logics

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we develop the basis of our method of proving ULIP for several logics. We present a simple proof of ULIP for classical propositional logic $\mathbf{Cl}$ using the basis of our method. Section 3 is devoted to developing a sufficient condition for modal logics to have ULIP. More precisely, we introduce the notion that a class of Kripke models enjoys $n$ -IP and prove that a logic $L$ has ULIP if $L$ is sound and complete with respect to a class of models enjoying $n$ -IP for some natural number $n$ . In Section 4, we prepare some lemmas on matching between clusters of Kripke models, which are used in our proofs of ULIP for several logics. In Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, we use our method to prove ULIP for 11 logics in Table 1, including 6 logics for which LIP has already been proved. In Section 9, we discuss the failure of LIP for some logics. At last, in Section 10, we discuss LIP and ULIP for intermediate propositional logics.

2 ULIP for classical propositional logic

In this section, we develop the basis of our method for proving ULIP of several modal logics and we apply this basis to prove ULIP of classical propositional logic. For this section only, we assume that formulas mean formulas of classical propositional logic. The language of classical propositional logic consists of propositional variables, logical constant $\bot$ , and logical connectives $\land,\lor,\neg$ and $\to$ .

For each formula $\varphi$ , we define the sets $v^{+}(\varphi)$ and $v^{-}(\varphi)$ recursively as follows:

•

$v^{+}(p)=\{p\}$ and $v^{-}(p)=\emptyset$ for every propositional variable $p$ ,
•

$v^{\circ}(\bot)=\emptyset$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ ,
•

$v^{\circ}(\varphi\ast\psi)=v^{\circ}(\varphi)\cup v^{\circ}(\psi)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ and $\ast\in\{\land,\lor\}$ ,
•

$v^{+}(\neg\varphi)=v^{-}(\varphi)$ and $v^{-}(\neg\varphi)=v^{+}(\varphi)$ ,
•

$v^{+}(\varphi\to\psi)=v^{-}(\varphi)\cup v^{+}(\psi)$ and $v^{-}(\varphi\to\psi)=v^{+}(\varphi)\cup v^{-}(\psi)$ .

Also, let $v(\varphi):=v^{+}(\varphi)\cup v^{-}(\varphi)$ .

Definition 2.1.

Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables.

1.

A formula $\varphi$ is said to be a $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula iff $v^{\circ}(\varphi)\subseteq P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .
2.

Let $\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}$ denote a fixed finite set of $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formulas such that for any $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula $\varphi$ , there exists a $\psi\in\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}$ such that $\mathbf{Cl}\vdash\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi$ . The existence of such a finite set $\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}$ is easily proved. Here, the subscript $0$ indicates box-free.

For every truth assignments $\mathsf{V}_{0}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}$ of formulas, we write

\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}

iff for any $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula $\varphi$ , if $\mathsf{V}_{0}(\varphi)=1$ , then $\mathsf{V}_{1}(\varphi)=1$ .

For every truth assignment $\mathsf{V}$ , let $\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[\mathsf{V}]$ denote the $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula

\bigwedge\{\varphi\in\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}\mid\mathsf{V}(\varphi)=1\}.

The following lemma is easily verified, and therefore we use the lemma freely without referring to it.

Lemma 2.2 (Cf. [6, Proposition 6]).

Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and $\mathsf{V}_{0}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}$ be any truth assignments. Then, the following are equivalent:

1.

$\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ .
2.

$\mathsf{V}_{1}\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{-},P^{+})}\mathsf{V}_{0}$ .
3.

$\mathsf{V}_{1}\bigl{(}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[\mathsf{V}_{0}]\bigr{)}=1$ .
4.

$\mathsf{V}_{0}\bigl{(}\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]\bigr{)}=1$ .

We prove the following theorem, which is an adaptation of a result proved in [6, Proof of Lemma 1] to the framework of this section.

Theorem 2.3.

Let $P_{0}^{+},P_{1}^{+},P_{2}^{+},P_{0}^{-},P_{1}^{-}$ and $P_{2}^{-}$ be finite sets of propositional variables such that $P_{0}^{\circ}$ , $P_{1}^{\circ}$ and $P_{2}^{\circ}$ are pairwise disjoint for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . Let $\mathsf{V}_{0}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}$ be truth assignments. If $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ , then there exists a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}^{*}$ such that $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}^{*}$ and $\mathsf{V}^{*}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ .

Proof.

Let $\mathsf{V}_{0}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}$ be any truth assignments such that $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ . We define a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}^{*}$ by referring to Table 3. For each propositional variable $p$ , let $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ iff $p$ meets one of the conditions stated in the 16 rows of the table. For example, the fifth row in the table states the condition that $p\in P_{1}^{+}\cap P_{0}^{-}$ , $p\notin P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-}$ , and $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ .

	$P_{0}^{+}$	$P_{1}^{+}$	$P_{2}^{+}$	$P_{0}^{-}$	$P_{1}^{-}$	$P_{2}^{-}$
1	$\checkmark$			$\checkmark$			$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
2	$\checkmark$				$\checkmark$		$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
3	$\checkmark$					$\checkmark$	$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ or $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
4	$\checkmark$						$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
5		$\checkmark$		$\checkmark$			$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
6		$\checkmark$			$\checkmark$		$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
7		$\checkmark$				$\checkmark$	$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
8		$\checkmark$					$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
9			$\checkmark$	$\checkmark$			$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
10			$\checkmark$		$\checkmark$		$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
11			$\checkmark$			$\checkmark$	$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
12			$\checkmark$				$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
13				$\checkmark$			$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$
14					$\checkmark$		$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
15						$\checkmark$	$\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$
16							$\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$

Table 3: The definition of

\mathsf{V}^{*}

For the proof of $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}^{*}$ , we simultaneously prove the following two conditions by induction on the construction of $\varphi$ :

1.

If $\varphi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $\mathsf{V}_{0}(\varphi)=1$ , then $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi)=1$ .
2.

If $\varphi$ is a $(P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-},P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+})$ -formula and $\mathsf{V}_{0}(\varphi)=0$ , then $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi)=0$ .

The case of $\bot$ trivially holds. We prove the case of a propositional variable $p$ .

1. Suppose $p\in P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ . If $p\in P_{0}^{+}$ , then $p$ meets one of 1, 2, 3, and 4, and hence $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ . If $p\in P_{1}^{+}$ , then we have $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$ because $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ . Then, $p$ meets one of 5, 6, 7, and 8, and thus we obtain $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ .

2. Suppose $p\in P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-}$ and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ . In this case, $p$ meets one of 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14. If $p$ meets one of 1, 2, 5, 9, and 13, then we have $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ . If $p$ meets one of 6, 10, and 14, then $p\in P_{1}^{-}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$ . Since $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ , we obtain $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ .

The cases of the boolean combinations are easily proved by using the induction hypothesis.

For the proof of $\mathsf{V}^{*}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ , we simultaneously prove the following two conditions by induction on the construction of $\varphi$ :

1.

If $\varphi$ is a $(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-})$ -formula and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi)=1$ , then $\mathsf{V}_{1}(\varphi)=1$ .
2.

If $\varphi$ is a $(P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-},P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+})$ -formula and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi)=0$ , then $\mathsf{V}_{1}(\varphi)=0$ .

We give only the proof of the case that $\varphi$ is a propositional variable $p$ .

1. Suppose $p\in P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+}$ and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ . Then, $p$ meets one of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. If $p$ meets one of 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, then $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$ . If $p$ meets one of 5 and 8, then $p\in P_{1}^{+}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ . Since $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ , we obtain $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$ .

2. Suppose $p\in P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-}$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}(p)=1$ . If $p\notin P_{0}^{+}\cap P_{1}^{-}$ , then $p$ meets one of 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and hence $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ . If $p\in P_{0}^{+}\cap P_{1}^{-}$ , then we have $\mathsf{V}_{0}(p)=1$ because $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ . Then $p$ meets 2, and thus we get $\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ . ∎

By using Theorem 2.3, we can easily prove ULIP for classical propositional logic $\mathbf{Cl}$ .

Theorem 2.4.

The logic $\mathbf{Cl}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

Let $\varphi$ be any formula and $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables. Let $P_{0}^{\circ}:=P^{\circ}$ and $P_{1}^{\circ}:=v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . Let $\theta$ be the $(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})$ -formula

\bigwedge\{\psi\in\Phi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mid\mathbf{Cl}\vdash\varphi% \to\psi\}.

We prove that $\theta$ is a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $(\varphi,P^{+},P^{-})$ in $\mathbf{Cl}$ . The conditions $\mathbf{Cl}\vdash\varphi\to\theta$ and $v^{\circ}(\theta)\subseteq v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ are easily verified. Let $\rho$ be any formula such that $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\theta\to\rho$ and $v^{\circ}(\rho)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . It suffices to prove $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\varphi\to\rho$ . Let $P_{2}^{\circ}:=v^{\circ}(\rho)\setminus v^{\circ}(\varphi)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . Since $v^{\circ}(\rho)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ , we have that $P_{0}^{\circ}$ , $P_{1}^{\circ}$ , and $P_{2}^{\circ}$ are pairwise disjoint for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .

Since $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\theta\to\rho$ , there exists a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}_{1}$ such that $\mathsf{V}_{1}(\theta)=1$ and $\mathsf{V}_{1}(\rho)=0$ . Since $\mathsf{V}_{1}\bigl{(}\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]\bigr{)}=1$ , we have $\mathsf{V}_{1}\bigl{(}\theta\to\neg\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}% _{1}]\bigr{)}=0$ . Thus, $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\theta\to\neg\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]$ . Since $\neg\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]$ is a $(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})$ -formula, by the definition of $\theta$ , we obtain $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\varphi\to\neg\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]$ . Hence, there exists a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}_{0}$ such that $\mathsf{V}_{0}(\varphi)=1$ and $\mathsf{V}_{0}\bigl{(}\chi_{0}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[\mathsf{V}_{1}]\bigr{)}=1$ . By Lemma 2.2, we get $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ .

It follows from Theorem 2.3 that there exists a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}^{*}$ such that $\mathsf{V}_{0}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}^{*}$ and $\mathsf{V}^{*}\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-}% )}\mathsf{V}_{1}$ . Since $\varphi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $\rho$ is a $(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-})$ -formula, we obtain $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi)=1$ and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\rho)=0$ . Therefore, $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\varphi\to\rho)=0$ . We conclude $\mathbf{Cl}\nvdash\varphi\to\rho$ . ∎

3 A sufficient condition for ULIP in modal logic

In this section, we present a sufficient condition for modal logics to have ULIP. For this purpose, we extend Definition 2.1 to the framework of modal propositional logic. From now on, we assume that formulas mean formulas of modal propositional logic. The language of modal propositional logic is obtained from that of classical propositional logic by adding the unary modal operator $\Box$ . Let $\Diamond\varphi$ be the abbreviation for $\neg\Box\neg\varphi$ . The notions of positive variables and negative variables of formulas are extended to the language of modal propositional logic with the following clause:

•

$v^{\circ}(\Box\varphi)=v^{\circ}(\varphi)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .

Definition 3.1.

For each formula $\varphi$ , let $d(\varphi)$ denote the maximum number of nested occurrences of $\Box$ in $\varphi$ . More precisely, $d(\varphi)$ is defined recursively as follows:

•

$d(p)=d(\bot)=0$ , where $p$ is a propositional variable $p$ ,
•

$d(\neg\varphi)=d(\varphi)$ ,
•

$d(\varphi\circ\psi)=\max\{d(\varphi),d(\psi)\}$ for $\circ\in\{\land,\lor,\to\}$ ,
•

$d(\Box\varphi)=d(\varphi)+1$ .

Definition 3.2.

•

A pair $(W,R)$ is called a ( $\mathbf{S4}$ -)Kripke frame iff $W$ is a non-empty set and $R$ is a reflexive and transitive binary relation on $W$ .

•

A triple $(W,R,\Vdash)$ is called a Kripke model iff $(W,R)$ is a Kripke frame and $\Vdash$ is a satisfaction relation between elements of $W$ and formulas fulfilling the usual conditions for each propositional connective and the following condition:

(M,x)\Vdash\Box\varphi\iff\forall y(xRy\Rightarrow(M,y)\Vdash\varphi).

Definition 3.3.

Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and $n$ be any natural number.

1.

A formula $\varphi$ is said to be a $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula iff $v^{\circ}(\varphi)\subseteq P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .
2.

Let $\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}$ denote a fixed finite set of $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formulas $\varphi$ with $d(\varphi)\leq n$ satisfying that for any $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula $\psi$ with $d(\psi)\leq n$ , there exists a $\rho\in\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}$ such that $\mathbf{K}\vdash\psi\leftrightarrow\rho$ . The existence of such a finite set $\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}$ is proved by induction on $n$ .

For Kripke models $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ and elements $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , we write

(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[n]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})

iff for any $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula $\varphi$ with $d(\varphi)\leq n$ , if $(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\varphi$ , then $(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\varphi$ .

For every Kripke model $M=(W,R,\Vdash)$ and element $w\in W$ , let $\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}[M,w]$ denote the $(P^{+},P^{-})$ -formula

\bigwedge\{\varphi\in\Phi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}\mid(M,w)\Vdash\varphi\}.

Lemma 3.4 (Cf. [6, Proposition 6]).

Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables, $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models, $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and $n$ be any natural number. Then, the following are equivalent:

1.

$(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[n]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ .
2.

$(M_{1},w_{1})\xrightarrow[n]{(P^{-},P^{+})}(M_{0},w_{0})$ .
3.

$(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{n}[M_{0},w_{0}]$ .
4.

$(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{n}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ .

Definition 3.5 (p-morphisms).

Let $F=(W,R)$ and $F^{\prime}=(W^{\prime},R^{\prime})$ be Kripke frames. A mapping $f:W\to W^{\prime}$ is called a p-morphism iff the following conditions hold:

•

For any $x,y\in W$ , if $xRy$ , then $f(x)R^{\prime}f(y)$ .
•

For any $x\in W$ and $w\in W^{\prime}$ , if $f(x)R^{\prime}w$ , then there exists $z\in W$ such that $xRz$ and $f(z)=w$ .

We introduce a key notion in this paper.

Definition 3.6 ( $n$ -IP).

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a class of Kripke models and $n$ be a natural number. We say that $\mathcal{C}$ enjoys $n$ -IP iff for any finite sets $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ of propositional variables, any Kripke models $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ in $\mathcal{C}$ , and any elements $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , if $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[n]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , then there exist a Kripke frame $\mathcal{F}^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*})$ , an element $w^{*}\in W^{*}$ , and two $p$ -morphisms $f_{0}:W^{*}\to W_{0}$ and $f_{1}:W^{*}\to W_{1}$ satisfying the following three conditions:

1.

all Kripke models based on $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$ ,
2.

$f_{0}(w^{*})=w_{0}$ and $f_{1}(w^{*})=w_{1}$ ,
3.

for any $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ , we have $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},f_{1}(x^{*}))$ .

We are ready to prove our main instrument in the present paper. The following theorem is an adaptation of Theorem 2 in [6] for the purpose of this paper, and it also extends the proof of Theorem 2.4 to modal logic. We note that our sufficient condition for ULIP resembles to Marx’s condition on bisimulation products for CIP [18].

Theorem 3.7.

If a modal logic $L$ is sound and complete with respect to some class $\mathcal{C}$ of Kripke models enjoying $n$ -IP for some natural number $n$ , then $L$ has ULIP.

Proof.

Suppose that a class $\mathcal{C}$ of Kripke models enjoys $n$ -IP and that $L$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}$ . Let $\varphi$ be any formula and $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables. Let $P_{0}^{\circ}:=P^{\circ}$ and $P_{1}^{\circ}:=v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . Let $\theta$ be the $(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})$ -formula

\bigwedge\{\psi\in\Phi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}\mid L\vdash\varphi\to\psi\}.

We prove that $\theta$ is a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $(\varphi,P^{+},P^{-})$ in $L$ . The conditions $L\vdash\varphi\to\theta$ and $v^{\circ}(\theta)\subseteq v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ are easily verified. Let $\rho$ be any formula such that $L\nvdash\theta\to\rho$ and $v^{\circ}(\rho)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . We prove $L\nvdash\varphi\to\rho$ . Let $P_{2}^{\circ}:=v^{\circ}(\rho)\setminus v^{\circ}(\varphi)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ . Since $v^{\circ}(\rho)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ , we have that $P_{0}^{\circ}$ , $P_{1}^{\circ}$ , and $P_{2}^{\circ}$ are pairwise disjoint for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .

Since $L\nvdash\theta\to\rho$ , by the completeness, there exists a Kripke model $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ in $\mathcal{C}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ such that $(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\theta$ and $(M_{1},w_{1})\nVdash_{1}\rho$ . Since $(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ , we have

(M_{1},w_{1})\nVdash_{1}\theta\to\neg\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_% {1}].

By the soundness, $L\nvdash\theta\to\neg\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ . Since $\neg\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ is a $(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})$ -formula, by the definition of $\theta$ , we obtain $L\nvdash\varphi\to\neg\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ . By the completeness, there exists a Kripke model $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ in $\mathcal{C}$ and $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ such that $(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\varphi$ and $(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\chi_{n}^{(P_{1}^{-},P_{1}^{+})}[M_{1},w_{1}]$ . By Lemma 3.4, we get $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[n]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ .

Since $\mathcal{C}$ enjoys $n$ -IP, there exists a Kripke frame $\mathcal{F}^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*})$ , an element $w^{*}\in W^{*}$ , and two $p$ -morphisms $f_{0}:W^{*}\to W_{0}$ and $f_{1}:W^{*}\to W_{1}$ satisfying the following three conditions:

1.

all Kripke models based on $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$ ,
2.

$f_{0}(w^{*})=w_{0}$ and $f_{1}(w^{*})=w_{1}$ ,
3.

for any $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ , we have $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}(M_{1},f_{1}(x^{*}))$ .

We define a Kripke model $M^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*},\Vdash^{*})$ as follows:
Let $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ . Since $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\xrightarrow[0]{(P_{1}^{+},P_{1}^{-})}(M_{1},f_{1}(x^{*}))$ , it follows from Theorem 2.3 that there exists a truth assignment $\mathsf{V}^{*}$ such that for any formula $\psi$ with $d(\psi)=0$ , the following two conditions hold:

1.

If $\psi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\Vdash_{0}\psi$ , then $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\psi)=1$ .
2.

If $\psi$ is a $(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-})$ -formula and $\mathsf{V}^{*}(\psi)=1$ , then $(M_{1},f_{1}(x^{*}))\Vdash_{1}\psi$ .

Let $(M^{*},x^{*})\Vdash^{*}p:\iff\mathsf{V}^{*}(p)=1$ .

By the first condition of $n$ -IP, we have $M^{*}\in\mathcal{C}$ .

We prove that for any formula $\psi$ and any $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ ,

1.

If $\psi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\Vdash_{0}\psi$ , then $(M^{*},x^{*})\Vdash^{*}\psi$ .
2.

If $\psi$ is a $(P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-},P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+})$ -formula and $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\nVdash_{0}\psi$ , then $(M^{*},x^{*})\nVdash^{*}\psi$ .

We simultaneously prove these two statements by induction on the construction of $\psi$ . The case that $d(\psi)=0$ directly follows from Theorem 2.3. The cases of propositional connectives easily follow from the induction hypothesis. So we give only the proof of the case that $\psi$ is of the form $\Box\xi$ .

1. Suppose that $\Box\xi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $(M^{*},x^{*})\nVdash^{*}\Box\xi$ . Then, there exists $y^{*}\in W^{*}$ such that $x^{*}R^{*}y^{*}$ and $(M^{*},y^{*})\nVdash^{*}\xi$ . Since $\xi$ is also a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula, by the induction hypothesis, we have $(M_{0},f_{0}(y^{*}))\nVdash_{0}\xi$ . We have $f_{0}(x^{*})R_{0}f_{0}(y^{*})$ because $f_{0}$ is a p-morphism, and so we obtain $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\nVdash_{0}\Box\xi$ .

2. Suppose that $\Box\xi$ is a $(P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-},P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+})$ -formula and $(M_{0},f_{0}(x^{*}))\nVdash_{0}\Box\xi$ . There exists $y_{0}\in W_{0}$ such that $f_{0}(x^{*})R_{0}y_{0}$ and $(M_{0},y_{0})\nVdash_{0}\xi$ . Since $f_{0}$ is a p-morphism, there exists $y^{*}\in W^{*}$ such that $x^{*}R^{*}y^{*}$ and $f_{0}(y^{*})=y_{0}$ . Since $\xi$ is also a $(P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-},P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+})$ -formula, by the induction hypothesis, we have $(M^{*},y^{*})\nVdash^{*}\xi$ . Hence, $(M^{*},x^{*})\nVdash^{*}\Box\xi$ .

In the same way, we can prove that for any formula $\psi$ and any $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ ,

•

If $\psi$ is a $(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-})$ -formula and $(M^{*},x^{*})\Vdash^{*}\psi$ , then $(M_{1},f_{1}(x^{*}))\Vdash_{1}\psi$ .

Since $\varphi$ is a $(P_{0}^{+}\cup P_{1}^{+},P_{0}^{-}\cup P_{1}^{-})$ -formula and $(M_{0},w_{0})=(M_{0},f_{0}(w^{*}))\Vdash_{0}\varphi$ , we have $(M^{*},w^{*})\Vdash^{*}\varphi$ . Also, since $\rho$ is a $(P_{1}^{+}\cup P_{2}^{+},P_{1}^{-}\cup P_{2}^{-})$ -formula and $(M_{1},w_{1})=(M_{1},f_{1}(w^{*}))\nVdash_{1}\rho$ , we obtain $(M^{*},w^{*})\nVdash^{*}\rho$ . Therefore, $(M^{*},w^{*})\nVdash^{*}\varphi\to\rho$ . By the soundness, we conclude $L\nvdash\varphi\to\rho$ . ∎

Remark 3.8.

In Definition 3.6, if we label each $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ with the pair $(f_{0}(x^{*}),f_{1}(x^{*}))$ and we roughly write $x^{*}$ as its label $(f_{0}(x^{*}),f_{1}(x^{*}))$ , then the conditions required for $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ in the definition can be rewritten as follows without mentioning p-morphisms:

1.

all Kripke models based on $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$ ,
2.

$(w_{0},w_{1})\in W^{*}$ ,
3.

if $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ , then $x_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ and $x_{1}R_{1}y_{1}$ ,
4.

if $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ and $x_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ , then $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ for some $y_{1}\in W_{1}$ ,
5.

if $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ and $x_{1}R_{1}y_{1}$ , then $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ for some $y_{0}\in W_{0}$ ,
6.

if $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ , then $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ .

Since there may be distinct elements of $W^{*}$ with the same label, the above description is somewhat imprecise. For example, Clause 4 should be precisely as follows:

•

if $x^{*}\in W^{*}$ has a label $(x_{0},x_{1})$ and $x_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ , then there exist $y^{*}\in W^{*}$ and $y_{1}\in W_{1}$ such that $y^{*}$ has the label $(y_{0},y_{1})$ and $x^{*}R^{*}y^{*}$ .

Since this rough labeling notation makes it easy to check that a given model meets the required conditions, in the subsequent sections, we will adopt this notation to describe the elements of $W^{*}$ .

4 Some lemmas on matching between clusters

Before actually proving ULIP for several logics using the method developed in the last section, in this section, we present some lemmas on matching between clusters, which will be used in our proofs of ULIP.

For each Kripke frame $(W,R)$ , we say that a subset $I\subseteq W$ is a cluster iff $I$ is an equivalence class of the equivalence relation $R^{s}$ defined by $xR^{s}y:\iff xRy\ \&\ yRx$ . All the modal logics for which we prove their ULIP in this paper are extensions of $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ , and so we will basically deal only with finite Kripke models $(W,R,\Vdash)$ such that $W$ may have or may not have the unique root element $x$ and $W\setminus\{x\}$ is a disjoint union of finitely many clusters of final elements. For two such models $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ , $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ and elements $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ , $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , we discuss some conclusions that can be obtained from the assumption that $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[n]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ holds. In this section, for $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $C_{i}^{0},C_{i}^{1},\ldots,C_{i}^{j_{i}}$ be all the clusters of final elements of $M_{i}$ . The model $M_{i}$ is visualized in Figure 1:

Figure 1: The model

M_{i}=(W_{i},R_{i},\Vdash_{i})

Definition 4.1.

We say that a cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ matches a cluster $C_{1}^{l}$ of $M_{1}$ iff the following two conditions hold:

1.

For any $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ , there exists $u_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .
2.

For any $u_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ , there exists $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .

Lemma 4.2.

For $w_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ and $w_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ , if $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , then $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ .

Proof.

Suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . We prove the two clauses of Definition 4.1.

1. For each $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ , since $(M_{0},u_{0})\Vdash_{0}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_{0},u_{0}]$ , we have $(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Diamond\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_{0},u_{0}]$ because $w_{0}R_{0}u_{0}$ . Since $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , this formula is also true in $(M_{1},w_{1})$ . Thus, we find some $u_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ such that $(M_{1},u_{1})\Vdash_{1}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_{0},u_{0}]$ . By Lemma 3.4, we obtain $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .

2. For each $u_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ , we have $(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},u_{1}]$ . Since $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , this formula is also true in $(M_{0},w_{0})$ . Then as above, we find some $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ . ∎

Lemma 4.3.

For $w_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ , if $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ , then $C_{0}^{k}$ matches all the clusters $C_{1}^{l}$ of $M_{1}$ .

Proof.

Suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ . Let $C_{1}^{l}$ be any cluster of $M_{1}$ and $u_{1}$ be any element of $C_{1}^{l}$ . Since $(M_{1},u_{1})\Vdash_{1}\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{1}[M_{1},u_{1}]$ , we have $(M_{1},x_{1})\Vdash_{1}\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{1}[M_{1},u_{1}]$ . By the supposition, we have that this formula is also true in $(M_{0},w_{0})$ . So, there exists some $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ . By Lemma 4.2, we have that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ . ∎

Lemma 4.4.

If $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ , then the following two properties hold:

1.

For any cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ , there exists a cluster $C_{1}^{l}$ of $M_{1}$ such that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ .
2.

For any cluster $C_{1}^{l}$ of $M_{1}$ , there exists a cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ such that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ .

Proof.

Suppose $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ . We give only a proof of the first clause and the second clause can be proved in the same way.

1. Let $C_{0}^{k}$ be any cluster of $M_{0}$ . For any $v_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ , we have

(M_{0},v_{0})\Vdash_{0}\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{1}[M_% {0},u_{0}]

and hence

(M_{0},v_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Box\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{1% }[M_{0},u_{0}].

Then,

(M_{0},x_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Diamond\Box\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^% {-})}_{1}[M_{0},u_{0}].

Since $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ , this formula is also true in $(M_{1},x_{1})$ . Then, for some $y_{1}\in W_{1}$ ,

(M_{1},y_{1})\Vdash_{1}\Box\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{1% }[M_{0},u_{0}].

Hence, we find some cluster $C_{1}^{l}$ of $M_{1}$ and an element $u_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ such that

(M_{1},u_{1})\Vdash_{1}\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{1}[M_% {0},u_{0}].

Thus, there exists $u_{0}\in C_{0}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ . By Lemma 4.2, we conclude that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ . ∎

Lemma 4.5.

Let $A=\{a_{0},a_{1}\}$ and $B=\{b_{0},b_{1}\}$ be any sets consisting of two elements and let $R\subseteq A\times B$ be any binary relation. Suppose that $R$ satisfies the following two conditions:

1.

For any $a\in A$ , there exists $b\in B$ such that $(a,b)\in R$ .
2.

For any $b\in B$ , there exists $a\in A$ such that $(a,b)\in R$ .

Then, there exist $c,d\in B$ such that $c\neq d$ , $(a_{0},c)\in R$ , and $(a_{1},d)\in R$ .

Proof.

If both $(a_{0},b_{0})$ and $(a_{1},b_{1})$ are in $R$ , then the statement holds for $c=b_{0}$ and $d=b_{1}$ . If $(a_{0},b_{0})\notin R$ or $(a_{1},b_{1})\notin R$ , then by considering the two conditions, we find that both $(a_{0},b_{1})$ and $(a_{1},b_{0})$ are in $R$ , and so the statement holds for $c=b_{1}$ and $d=b_{0}$ . ∎

Lemma 4.6.

If the clusters $C_{0}^{k}=\{y_{0},z_{0}\}$ and $C_{1}^{l}=\{y_{1},z_{1}\}$ consist of two elements and $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{l}$ , then there exist $u_{1},v_{1}\in C_{1}^{l}$ such that $u_{1}\neq v_{1}$ and

(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},z% _{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}).

Proof.

This directly follows from Definition 4.1 and Lemma 4.5. ∎

Lemma 4.7.

Suppose both $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ include exactly two clusters $C_{0}^{0},C_{0}^{1}$ and $C_{1}^{0},C_{1}^{1}$ of final elements, respectively. If $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ , then there exist distinct clusters $D_{1}^{0}$ and $D_{1}^{1}$ of $M_{1}$ such that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $D_{1}^{k}$ for $k\in\{0,1\}$ .

Proof.

This directly follows from Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5. ∎

5 Modal companions of $\mathbf{Cl}$

In this section, we prove ULIP for the logics $\mathbf{Triv}$ and $\mathbf{S5}$ as test cases for our application of Theorem 3.7.

5.1 $\mathbf{Triv}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{Triv}}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frame consists of a single reflexive world. The logic $\mathbf{Triv}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{Triv}}$ .

Theorem 5.1 (Maksimova [15]).

$\mathbf{Triv}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{Triv}}$ enjoys $0$ -IP. Then, ULIP for $\mathbf{Triv}$ follows from Theorem 3.7. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(\{w_{0}\},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(\{w_{1}\},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{Triv}}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . Let $W^{*}:=\{(w_{0},w_{1})\}$ and $R^{*}:=(W^{*})^{2}$ . Then, it is easy to check that $\mathcal{F}^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*})$ satisfies the conditions stated in Remark 3.8. ∎

5.2 $\mathbf{S5}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S5}}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frame forms a finite cluster. Figure 2 visualizes such a frame. In the following, we assume that each diagram represents the Kripke frame of the transitive and reflexive closure of the arrows shown in the diagram. The logic $\mathbf{S5}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S5}}$ .

Figure 2: A frame of

\mathbf{S5}

Theorem 5.2 (Fitting [3]).

$\mathbf{S5}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S5}}$ enjoys $1$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S5}}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[1]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . Then, both $W_{0}$ and $W_{1}$ are clusters of $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ , respectively. By Lemma 4.2, we have that $W_{0}$ matches $W_{1}$ .

Let $W^{*}:=\{(x_{0},x_{1})\mid(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_% {1})\}$ and $R^{*}:=(W^{*})^{2}$ . We check that $\mathcal{F}^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*})$ fulfills the conditions stated in Remark 3.8.

1.

Since $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ forms a finite cluster, all Kripke models based on $\mathcal{F}^{*}$ are in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S5}}$ .
2.

$(w_{0},w_{1})\in W^{*}$ because $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ .
3.

If $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ , then $x_{0},y_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $x_{1},y_{1}\in W_{1}$ . Since both $W_{0}$ and $W_{1}$ form clusters, we obtain $x_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ and $x_{1}R_{1}y_{1}$ .
4.

Suppose $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ and $x_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ . Since $W_{0}$ matches $W_{1}$ , we find some $y_{1}\in W_{1}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},y_{1})$ . Hence $(y_{0},y_{1})\in W^{*}$ . Since $R^{*}=(W^{*})^{2}$ , we obtain $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ .
5.

Suppose $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ and $x_{1}R_{1}y_{1}$ . In the same way as above, we can find some $y_{0}\in W_{0}$ such that $(y_{0},y_{1})\in W^{*}$ . Then, $(x_{0},x_{1})R^{*}(y_{0},y_{1})$ .
6.

If $(x_{0},x_{1})\in W^{*}$ , then $(M_{0},x_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},x_{1})$ by the definition of $W^{*}$ .

It follows from Theorem 3.7 that $\mathbf{S5}$ has ULIP. ∎

6 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LS}$

In this section, we prove that the three logics $\mathbf{GW.2}=\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,1)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$ , and $\mathbf{S4.4}=\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},\omega,1)$ have ULIP. In particular, LIP for $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$ is new.

6.1 $\mathbf{GW.2}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW.2}}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 3. The logic $\mathbf{GW.2}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW.2}}$ .

Figure 3: The frame of

\mathbf{GW.2}

Theorem 6.1 (Maksimova [15]).

$\mathbf{GW.2}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW.2}}$ enjoys $2$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW.2}}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $y_{i}$ be the final element of $M_{i}$ .

We show that $(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},y_{1})$ . Since $v_{1}R_{1}y_{1}$ for all $v_{1}\in W_{1}$ , we have $(M_{1},w_{1})\Vdash_{1}\Box\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},y_{1}]$ . Since $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , we get $(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Box\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},y_{1}]$ . Since $w_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ , we have $(M_{0},y_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},y_{1}]$ , and hence $(M_{0},y_{0})\Vdash_{0}\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},y_{1}]$ . By Lemma 3.4, $(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},y_{1})$ .

It is easy to check that the frame $\mathcal{F}^{*}=(W^{*},R^{*})$ drawn in Figure 4 satisfies all the required conditions stated in Remark 3.8. Note that in our rough labeling notation, the situation $(w_{0},w_{1})=(y_{0},y_{1})$ is allowed.

Figure 4: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

∎

6.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 5. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)}$ .

Figure 5: The frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)

Theorem 6.2.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)}$ enjoys $2$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . Let $C_{i}=\{y_{i},z_{i}\}$ be the cluster of final elements of $M_{i}$ for $i\in\{0,1\}$ .

We show that $C_{0}$ matches $C_{1}$ . Let $u_{1}\in C_{1}$ . Since $v_{1}R_{1}u_{1}$ for all $v_{1}\in W_{1}$ and $w_{0}R_{0}y_{0}$ , in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 6.1, we have $(M_{0},y_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Diamond\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},u_{1}]$ . Then, $\chi^{(P^{-},P^{+})}_{0}[M_{1},u_{1}]$ is true in at least one of $y_{0}$ and $z_{0}$ . Hence,

(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})\ \text{or}\ (M_{0},z_% {0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}).

(1)

In the similar way, we can prove that for $u_{0}\in\{y_{0},z_{0}\}$ ,

(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},y_{1})\ \text{or}\ (M_{0},u_% {0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},z_{1}).

(2)

Since both $C_{0}$ and $C_{1}$ consist of two elements, by Lemma 4.6, there exist $u_{1},v_{1}\in C_{1}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1})$

Figure 6: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

It is easy to check that the frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ in Figure 6 satisfies all the required conditions. ∎

6.3 $\mathbf{S4.4}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S4.4}}$ be the class of all finite Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 7. The logic $\mathbf{S4.4}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S4.4}}$ .

Figure 7: A frame of

\mathbf{S4.4}

Theorem 6.3 (Shimura [22]).

$\mathbf{S4.4}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S4.4}}$ enjoys $2$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{S4.4}}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . Let $C_{i}$ be the finite cluster of final elements of $M_{i}$ for $i\in\{0,1\}$ .

We show that $C_{0}$ matches $C_{1}$ . For each $v_{0}\in C_{0}$ , we have

(M_{0},v_{0})\Vdash_{0}\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_{0},% u_{0}],

and hence

(M_{0},v_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Box\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_% {0},u_{0}].

So,

(M_{0},w_{0})\Vdash_{0}\Diamond\Box\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})% }_{0}[M_{0},u_{0}].

Since $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[2]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ , we obtain that this formula is also true in $(M_{1},w_{1})$ . It follows that for every $u_{1}\in C_{1}$ , we get

(M_{1},u_{1})\Vdash_{1}\bigvee_{u_{0}\in C_{0}}\chi^{(P^{+},P^{-})}_{0}[M_{0},% u_{0}],

and thus, there exists $u_{0}\in C_{0}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .

In the same way, we can show that for any $u_{0}\in C_{0}$ , there exists $u_{1}\in C_{1}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .

Let

C^{*}:=\{(u_{0},u_{1})\mid u_{0}\in C_{0},u_{1}\in C_{1},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},% u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})\}.

Then, the frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ shown in Figure 8 satisfies all the required conditions.

Figure 8: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

∎

7 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LV}$

In this section, we newly prove that the three logics $\mathbf{GV}=\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,1)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$ have ULIP. In particular, LIP for $\mathbf{GV}$ is mentioned in [17] as an open problem.

7.1 $\mathbf{GV}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GV}}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 9. The logic $\mathbf{GV}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GV}}$ .

Figure 9: The frame of

\mathbf{GV}

Theorem 7.1.

$\mathbf{GV}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GV}}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GV}}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and $y_{i},z_{i}$ be two distinct final elements of $M_{i}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in\{y_{0},z_{0}\}$ and $w_{1}\in\{y_{1},z_{1}\}$ .

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in\{y_{0},z_{0}\}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

For the case where $w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in\{y_{1},z_{1}\}$ , we can draw the required frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ similar to that corresponding to Case 2 in Figure 10. In subsequent proofs, we will basically omit the mention of such similar cases. In Case 2, by Lemma 4.3, we have that $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ for $u_{1}\in\{y_{1},z_{1}\}$ .

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

Since both $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ consist of two clusters, by Lemma 4.7, there exist two distinct final elements $u_{1}$ and $v_{1}$ of $M_{1}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1})$ .

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to each of the three cases are shown together in Figure 10. It is easy to check that these frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 10: The frames

(W^{*},R^{*})

∎

7.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)}$ be the class of all Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 11. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)}$ .

Figure 11: The frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)

Theorem 7.2.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $C_{i}^{0}=\{y_{i}^{0},z_{i}^{0}\}$ and $C_{i}^{1}=\{y_{i}^{1},z_{i}^{1}\}$ be two distinct clusters of final elements of $M_{i}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}\in C_{1}^{0}$ .

By Lemma 4.2, we have that $C_{0}^{0}$ matches $C_{1}^{0}$ . Since each cluster consists of two elements, by Lemma 4.6, there exist $u_{1}^{0},v_{1}^{0}\in C_{1}^{0}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{0})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{0})$ .

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.3, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches both $C_{1}^{0}$ and $C_{1}^{1}$ . Then, by Lemma 4.6, for $k\in\{0,1\}$ , there exist $u_{1}^{k},v_{1}^{k}\in C_{1}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{k})$ .

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

Since both $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ consist of two clusters, by Lemma 4.7, there exist two distinct clusters $D_{1}^{0}$ and $D_{1}^{1}$ of final elements of $M_{1}$ such that for $k\in\{0,1\}$ , $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $D_{1}^{k}$ . Also, since each cluster consist of two elements, by Lemma 4.6, for $k\in\{0,1\}$ , there exist $u_{1}^{k},v_{1}^{k}\in D_{1}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0}^{k})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0}^{k})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{k})$ .

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Cases 1 and 2 are shown together in Figure 12. Figure 13 shows our frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Case 3. These frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 12: The frames

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Cases 1 and 2

Figure 13: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Case 3

∎

7.3 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)}$ be the class of all finite Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 14. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)}$ .

Figure 14: A frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)

Theorem 7.3.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $C_{i}^{0}$ and $C_{i}^{1}$ be two distinct clusters of final elements of $M_{i}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}\in C_{1}^{0}$ .

By Lemma 4.2, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches $C_{1}^{0}$ . Let

C^{*}:=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0}\in C_{1}^{% 0},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{% 0})\}.

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.3, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches both $C_{1}^{0}$ and $C_{1}^{1}$ . Let

	$\displaystyle C^{*,0}:$	$\displaystyle=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0}\in C% _{1}^{0},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u% _{1}^{0})\},$
	$\displaystyle C^{*,1}:$	$\displaystyle=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{1})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{1}\in C% _{1}^{1},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u% _{1}^{1})\}.$

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

	$\displaystyle C^{*,0}:$	$\displaystyle=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0}\in D% _{1}^{0},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u% _{1}^{0})\},$
	$\displaystyle C^{*,1}:$	$\displaystyle=\{(v_{0}^{0},v_{1}^{0})\mid v_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{1},v_{1}^{1}\in D% _{1}^{1},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},v_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v% _{1}^{1})\}.$

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to these three cases are shown together in Figure 15. We can easily check that these frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 15: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

∎

8 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$

In this section, we prove that the three logics $\mathbf{GW}=\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,1)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ have ULIP. In particular, LIP for $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$ is new.

8.1 $\mathbf{GW}$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW}}$ be the class of all finite Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 16. The logic $\mathbf{GW}$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW}}$ .

Figure 16: A frame of

\mathbf{GW}

Theorem 8.1 (Shimura [22]; Maksimova [17]).

$\mathbf{GW}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW}}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{GW}}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $F_{i}$ be the set of all final elements of $M_{i}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in F_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in F_{1}$ .

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in F_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.3, for all $u_{1}\in F_{1}$ , we have that $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ . Let $F^{*}:=\{(w_{0},u_{1})\mid u_{1}\in F_{1}\}$ .

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.4, we obtain the following properties:

1.

For any $u_{0}\in F_{0}$ , there exists $u_{1}\in F_{1}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .
2.

For any $u_{1}\in F_{1}$ , there exists $u_{0}\in F_{0}$ such that $(M_{0},u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})$ .

Let

F^{*}:=\{(u_{0},u_{1})\mid u_{0}\in F_{0},u_{1}\in F_{1},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},% u_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1})\}.

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to these three cases are shown together in Figure 17. It is easy to check that these frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 17: The frames

(W^{*},R^{*})

∎

8.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)}$ be the class of all finite Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 18. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)}$ .

Figure 18: A frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)

Theorem 8.2.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $C_{i}^{0},C_{i}^{1},\ldots,C_{i}^{j_{i}}$ be all the clusters of final elements of $M_{i}$ . Also let $C_{i}^{k}=\{y_{i}^{k},z_{i}^{k}\}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}\in C_{1}^{0}$ .

By Lemma 4.2, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches $C_{1}^{0}$ . Since these clusters consist of two elements, by Lemma 4.6, there exist $u_{1}^{0},v_{1}^{0}\in C_{1}^{0}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{0})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{0})$ .

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.3, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches all the clusters $C_{1}^{k}$ of final elements of $M_{1}$ . Since every cluster consist of two elements, by Lemma 4.6, for each cluster $C_{1}^{k}$ of $M_{1}$ , there exist $u_{1}^{k},v_{1}^{k}\in C_{1}^{k}$ such that $(M_{0},y_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k})$ and $(M_{0},z_{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{k})$ .

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemmas 4.4 and 4.6, we obtain the following two properties:

For any cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ , there exist a cluster $C_{1}^{k^{\prime}}$ of $M_{1}$ and $u_{1}^{k^{\prime}},v_{1}^{k^{\prime}}\in C_{1}^{k^{\prime}}$ such that $u_{1}^{k^{\prime}}\neq v_{1}^{k^{\prime}}$ and

(M_{0},y_{0}^{k})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k^{\prime}})\ % \text{and}\ (M_{0},z_{0}^{k})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},v_{1}^{k^{% \prime}}).

For any cluster $C_{1}^{k}$ of $M_{1}$ , there exist a cluster $C_{0}^{k^{\prime}}$ of $M_{0}$ and $u_{0}^{k^{\prime}},v_{0}^{k^{\prime}}\in C_{0}^{k^{\prime}}$ such that $u_{0}^{k^{\prime}}\neq v_{0}^{k^{\prime}}$ and

(M_{0},u_{0}^{k^{\prime}})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},y_{1}^{k})\ % \text{and}\ (M_{0},v_{0}^{k^{\prime}})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},z_{% 1}^{k}).

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Cases 1 and 2 are drawn in Figure 19. Our frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Case 3 is shown in Figure 20. These frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 19: The frames

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Cases 1 and 2

Figure 20: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Case 3

∎

8.3 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$

Let $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)}$ be the class of all finite Kripke models whose frames are of the form shown in Figure 21. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ is sound and complete with respect to $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)}$ .

Figure 21: A frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)

Theorem 8.3 (Shimura [22]).

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$ has ULIP.

Proof.

We prove that $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)}$ enjoys $3$ -IP. Let $P^{+}$ and $P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables and let $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ and $M_{1}=(W_{1},R_{1},\Vdash_{1})$ be Kripke models in $\mathcal{C}_{\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)}$ , let $w_{0}\in W_{0}$ and $w_{1}\in W_{1}$ , and suppose $(M_{0},w_{0})\xrightarrow[3]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},w_{1})$ . For $i\in\{0,1\}$ , let $x_{i}$ be the root element of $M_{i}$ and let $C_{i}^{0},C_{i}^{1},\ldots,C_{i}^{j_{i}}$ be all the clusters of final elements of $M_{i}$ . We distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}\in C_{1}^{0}$ .

By Lemma 4.2, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches $C_{1}^{0}$ . Let

C^{*}:=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{0}\in C_{1}^{% 0},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{% 0})\}.

Case 2:

$w_{0}\in C_{0}^{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.3, $C_{0}^{0}$ matches all the clusters $C_{1}^{k}$ of final elements of $M_{1}$ . Then, for each cluster $C_{1}^{k}$ of $M_{1}$ , let

C^{*,k}=\{(u_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{k})\mid u_{0}^{0}\in C_{0}^{0},u_{1}^{k}\in C_{1}^% {k},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{0})\xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^% {k})\}.

Case 3:

$w_{0}=x_{0}$ and $w_{1}=x_{1}$ .

By Lemma 4.4, we obtain the following two properties:

1.

For any cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ , there exists a cluster $C_{1}^{k^{\prime}}$ of $M_{1}$ such that $C_{0}^{k}$ matches $C_{1}^{k^{\prime}}$ .
2.

For any cluster $C_{1}^{k}$ of $M_{1}$ , there exists a cluster $C_{0}^{k^{\prime}}$ of $M_{0}$ such that $C_{0}^{k^{\prime}}$ matches $C_{1}^{k}$ .

For each cluster $C_{0}^{k}$ of $M_{0}$ , let

C_{0}^{*,k}:=\{(u_{0}^{k},u_{1}^{k^{\prime}})\mid u_{0}^{k}\in C_{0}^{k},u_{1}% ^{k^{\prime}}\in C_{1}^{k^{\prime}},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{k})% \xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k^{\prime}})\}.

Also, for each cluster $C_{1}^{k}$ of $M_{1}$ , let

C_{1}^{*,k}:=\{(u_{0}^{k^{\prime}},u_{1}^{k})\mid u_{0}^{k^{\prime}}\in C_{0}^% {k^{\prime}},u_{1}^{k}\in C_{1}^{k},\ \text{and}\ (M_{0},u_{0}^{k^{\prime}})% \xrightarrow[0]{(P^{+},P^{-})}(M_{1},u_{1}^{k})\}.

Our frames $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Cases 1 and 2 are drawn in Figure 22. Our frame $(W^{*},R^{*})$ corresponding to Case 3 is shown in Figure 23. We can check that these frames satisfy all the required conditions.

Figure 22: The frames

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Cases 1 and 2

Figure 23: The frame

(W^{*},R^{*})

in Case 3

∎

9 Failure of LIP

In this section, we investigate the failure of LIP. Maksimova [15] proved that each of the logics $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,2)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,2)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{Cl},2,0)$ has CIP but does not have LIP (see also [16, 5]). We prove that the three further logics $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,\omega)$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,\omega)$ also do not have LIP. Moreover, we will prove this in a form that includes a part of Maksimova’s results, namely, we prove that every logic $L$ satisfying $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)\subseteq L\subseteq\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ does not have LIP.

Before proving our theorem, we prepare the following lemma.

Lemma 9.1.

Over the logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ , every formula $\varphi$ satisfying $v^{+}(\varphi)\subseteq\{p\}$ and $v^{-}(\varphi)=\emptyset$ is provably equivalent to one of the following eight formulas:

\bot,\quad\Box p,\quad p\land\Box\Diamond p,\quad\Box\Diamond p,\quad p,\quad p% \lor\Box\Diamond p,\quad\Diamond p,\quad\top.

Proof.

The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ is characterized by the Kripke frame shown in Figure 24. It is easy to see that $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ contains $\Box\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Diamond\Box p$ .

Figure 24: The frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)

The diagram in Figure 25 shows the implications between these eight formulas over $\mathbf{S4}$ .

Figure 25: The implication between the eight formulas over

\mathbf{S4}

We prove the lemma by induction on the construction of $\varphi$ . If $\varphi$ is one of $p$ , $\bot$ , and $\top$ , then the lemma is trivial.

Suppose that the lemma holds for $\varphi_{0}$ and $\varphi_{1}$ . It is easy to show that $\varphi_{0}\land\varphi_{1}$ and $\varphi_{0}\lor\varphi_{1}$ are equivalent to one of the eight formulas. The following list of equivalences shows that $\Box\varphi_{0}$ and $\Diamond\varphi_{0}$ are also equivalent to some of the eight formulas.

$\Box\bot\leftrightarrow\bot$	$\Diamond\bot\leftrightarrow\bot$
$\Box\Box p\leftrightarrow\Box p$	$\Diamond\Box p\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$
$\Box(p\land\Box\Diamond p)\leftrightarrow\Box p$	$\Diamond(p\land\Box\Diamond p)\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$
$\Box p\leftrightarrow\Box p$	$\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Diamond p$
$\Box\Box\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$	$\Diamond\Box\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$
$\Box(p\lor\Box\Diamond p)\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$	$\Diamond(p\lor\Box\Diamond p)\leftrightarrow\Diamond p$
$\Box\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Box\Diamond p$	$\Diamond\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Diamond p$
$\Box\top\leftrightarrow\top$	$\Diamond\top\leftrightarrow\top$

∎

Here, we are ready to prove the theorem.

Theorem 9.2.

Let $L$ be any logic satisfying $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)\subseteq L\subseteq\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ . Then, $L$ does not have LIP. In particular, each of the logics $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,2)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,\omega)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},1,2)$ , $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,\omega)$ , and $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ has CIP but does not have LIP.

Proof.

At first, we prove

\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)\vdash p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\Box(p% \lor q\lor\Box\neg q).

Let $(W,R,\Vdash)$ be any finite Kripke model whose frame is of the form shown in Figure 26. The logic $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)$ is characterized by the class of all such Kripke frames.

Figure 26: A frame of

\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},1,\omega)

Let $F$ be the set of all final elements of the model, and $I$ be the cluster $W\setminus F$ of inner elements. It suffices to show that $p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ is valid in $(W,R,\Vdash)$ . For $x\in F$ , we have $x\Vdash p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ because $x\Vdash p\to\Box p$ . For $x\in I$ , assume $x\Vdash p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)$ . Let $y\in W$ be any element such that $xRy$ . If $y\in I$ , then $y\Vdash\Diamond p\land(\Box\neg p\lor p)$ , and so $y\Vdash p$ . If $y\in F$ , then $y\Vdash q\lor\Box\neg q$ holds. Hence, we obtain $x\Vdash\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ . We have shown that $p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ is valid in $(W,R,\Vdash)$ .

Suppose, towards a contradiction, that the logic $L$ has LIP. Then, there would exist a Lyndon interpolant $\theta$ of $p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ . Since $L\subseteq\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ , we would have:

1.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)\vdash p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\theta$ .
2.

$\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)\vdash\theta\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ .
3.

$v^{+}(\theta)\subseteq\{p\}$ and $v^{-}(\theta)=\emptyset$ .

Here, we consider the model $M_{0}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{0})$ of $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ as drawn in Figure 27:

Figure 27: The model

M_{0}

It is easy to see that $(M_{0},x_{0})\Vdash_{0}p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)$ . Thus, we have $(M_{0},x_{0})\Vdash_{0}\theta$ because $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)\vdash p\land\Box(\Box\neg p\lor p)\to\theta$ . On the other hand, since $(M_{0},x_{0})\nVdash_{0}\Box\Diamond p$ , we have that $\theta$ is equivalent to one of $p$ , $p\lor\Box\Diamond p$ , $\Diamond p$ , and $\top$ over $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ by Lemma 9.1. So, $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)\vdash p\to\theta$ .

Next, we consider the model $M_{1}=(W_{0},R_{0},\Vdash_{1})$ of $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)$ as drawn in Figure 28:

Figure 28: The model

M_{1}

Since $(M_{1},x_{0})\Vdash_{1}p$ , we have $(M_{1},x_{0})\Vdash_{1}\theta$ . On the other hand, $(M_{1},x_{1})\nVdash_{1}p$ , $(M_{1},x_{1})\nVdash_{1}q$ , and $(M_{1},x_{1})\nVdash_{1}\Box\neg q$ imply that $(M_{1},x_{0})\nVdash_{1}\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ . This contradicts $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},1,2)\vdash\theta\to\Box(p\lor q\lor\Box\neg q)$ .

Therefore, $L$ does not have LIP. ∎

10 LIP and ULIP for intermediate propositional logics

In this section, we discuss LIP and ULIP for intermediate propositional logics. In particular, we will prove the following theorem.

Theorem 10.1.

For any consistent intermediate propositional logic $L$ , the following are equivalent:

1.

$L$ has CIP.
2.

$L$ has UIP.
3.

$L$ has LIP.
4.

$L$ has ULIP.

The equivalence $(1\Leftrightarrow 2)$ is already known [17]. So, we will prove the equivalences $(1\Leftrightarrow 3)$ and $(1\Leftrightarrow 4)$ .

First, we consider LIP. LIP for intermediate logics directly follows from LIP for modal logics through Gödel’s translation.

Definition 10.2 (Gödel’s translation).

We define the translation $\mathsf{T}$ from formulas of intermediate logic to formulas of modal logic as follows:

•

$\mathsf{T}(p)=\Box p$ for propositional variables $p$ ,
•

$\mathsf{T}(\bot)=\bot$ ,
•

$\mathsf{T}(\varphi\land\psi)=\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\land\mathsf{T}(\psi)$ ,
•

$\mathsf{T}(\varphi\lor\psi)=\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\lor\mathsf{T}(\psi)$ ,
•

$\mathsf{T}(\neg\varphi)=\Box\neg\mathsf{T}(\varphi)$ ,
•

$\mathsf{T}(\varphi\to\psi)=\Box(\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\mathsf{T}(\psi))$ .

For any intermediate logic $L$ and normal modal logic $M$ extending $\mathbf{S4}$ , we say that $M$ is a modal companion of $L$ iff for any formula $\varphi$ of intermediate logic, $L\vdash\varphi\iff M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)$ .

Fact 10.3 (Maksimova [15]).

For any intermediate propositional logic $L$ , if some modal companion of $L$ has LIP, then $L$ also has LIP.

For example, LIP for $\mathbf{Cl}$ , $\mathbf{LS}$ , $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ , $\mathbf{KC}$ , and $\mathbf{Int}$ follow from LIP for $\mathbf{S5}$ , $\mathbf{GW.2}$ , $\mathbf{GW}$ , $\mathbf{S4.2}$ , and $\mathbf{S4}$ , respectively. Since all modal companions of $\mathbf{LC}$ do not have CIP [14], Kuznets and Lellmann [9, 10] directly proves LIP for $\mathbf{LC}$ without using Fact 10.3. Among the intermediate logics having CIP, only the logic $\mathbf{LV}$ was not known to have LIP or not (cf. [17]). Since we proved that a modal companion $\mathbf{GV}$ of $\mathbf{LV}$ has LIP (Theorem 7.1), we obtain the following corollary, which yields the equivalence $(1\Leftrightarrow 3)$ of Theorem 10.1.

Corollary 10.4.

$\mathbf{LV}$ has LIP.

Next, we consider ULIP. We say that a logic $L$ is locally tabular iff for any finite set $P$ of propositional variables, there are finitely many formulas built from variables in $P$ up to $L$ -provable equivalence. For example, it is known that $\mathbf{Cl}$ , $\mathbf{LS}$ , $\mathbf{LV}$ , $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ , and $\mathbf{LC}$ are locally tabular. For locally tabular logics, LIP and ULIP coincide.

Fact 10.5 (Kurahashi [6, Proposition 3]).

If a locally tabular logic $L$ has LIP, then $L$ also has ULIP.

So, we obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 10.6.

The logics $\mathbf{Cl}$ , $\mathbf{LS}$ , $\mathbf{LV}$ , $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$ , and $\mathbf{LC}$ have ULIP.

Therefore, we only need to consider ULIP for $\mathbf{Int}$ and $\mathbf{KC}$ . Here, we prove an analogue of Fact 10.3.

Proposition 10.7.

For any intermediate propositional logic $L$ , if some modal companion of $L$ has ULIP, then $L$ also has ULIP.

Proof.

Suppose that a modal companion $M$ of $L$ has ULIP. Let $\varphi$ be any formula and $P^{+},P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables. Let $\theta$ be a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $(\mathsf{T}(\varphi),P^{+},P^{-})$ in $M$ . Let $\mathsf{s}$ be the uniform substitution such that $\mathsf{s}(p)=\Box p$ . It is easy to show that there exists a formula $\xi$ of intermediate logic satisfying the following conditions (cf. [1, Theorem 14.9]):

1.

$\mathbf{S4}\vdash\Box\mathsf{s}(\theta)\leftrightarrow\mathsf{T}(\xi)$ ,
2.

$v^{\circ}(\xi)=v^{\circ}(\theta)$ for $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ .

We show that $\xi$ is a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $(\varphi,P^{+},P^{-})$ in $L$ .

1. Since $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\theta$ and $\mathbf{S4}\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\leftrightarrow\Box\mathsf{T}(\varphi)$ , we have $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\Box\theta$ . Since $M$ is closed under applying uniform substitutions and $\mathbf{S4}\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\leftrightarrow\mathsf{s}\left(\mathsf{T}(% \varphi)\right)$ , we obtain $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\Box\mathsf{s}(\theta)$ . Hence, $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\mathsf{T}(\xi)$ , and so $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi\to\xi)$ . Since $M$ is a modal companion of $L$ , we get $L\vdash\varphi\to\xi$ .

2. For $\circ\in\{+,-\}$ , we have $v^{\circ}(\xi)=v^{\circ}(\theta)\subseteq v^{\circ}\left(\mathsf{T}(\varphi)% \right)\setminus P^{\circ}=v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}$ .

3. Let $\psi$ be any formula such that $L\vdash\varphi\to\psi$ and $v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ . Then, $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\varphi)\to\mathsf{T}(\psi)$ . Since $v^{\circ}\left(\mathsf{T}(\psi)\right)\cap P^{\circ}=v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{% \circ}=\emptyset$ , we obtain $M\vdash\theta\to\mathsf{T}(\psi)$ . Then, in the similar way as above, we obtain $M\vdash\mathsf{T}(\xi\to\psi)$ . Therefore, $L\vdash\xi\to\psi$ . ∎

It was proved in [6] that a modal companion $\mathbf{Grz}$ of $\mathbf{Int}$ has ULIP. So, we immediately obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 10.8.

$\mathbf{Int}$ has ULIP.

Finally, we focus on ULIP for $\mathbf{KC}$ . For this, it suffices to prove ULIP for a modal companion $\mathbf{Grz.2}$ of $\mathbf{KC}$ . Let $\alpha(p)$ be the formula $\Box(\Box\Diamond p\leftrightarrow\Diamond\Box p)$ , then $\mathbf{Grz.2}$ is the least normal extension of $\mathbf{Grz}$ containing $\alpha(p)$ . We use the following facts.

Fact 10.9 (Cf. [5, Lemma 5.32 and Proposition 5.35]).

For any formula $\varphi$ with $v(\varphi)=\{q_{0},\ldots,q_{k-1}\}$ , if $\mathbf{Grz.2}\vdash\varphi$ , then

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\alpha(q_{0})\land\cdots\land\alpha(q_{k-1}% )\to\varphi.

Fact 10.10 (Cf. [5, Lemma 5.33]).

Let $L$ be a normal modal logic and $\varphi(p),\psi$ and $\rho$ be any formulas such that $L\vdash\psi\to\rho$ .

1.

If $p\notin v^{-}(\varphi)$ , then $L\vdash\varphi(\psi)\to\varphi(\rho)$ .
2.

If $p\notin v^{+}(\varphi)$ , then $L\vdash\varphi(\rho)\to\varphi(\psi)$ .

Theorem 10.11.

$\mathbf{Grz.2}$ has ULIP.

Proof.

Let $\varphi$ be any formula and $P^{+},P^{-}$ be any finite sets of propositional variables. If $\circ$ is $+$ (resp. $-$ ), then let $\bullet$ denote $-$ (resp. $+$ ). Let $X$ be the union of the following three sets:

v^{+}(\varphi)\cap v^{-}(\varphi),\quad(v^{+}(\varphi)\setminus v^{-}(\varphi)% )\cap P^{-},\quad(v^{-}(\varphi)\setminus v^{+}(\varphi))\cap P^{+}.

Also let $Y$ be the union of the following two sets:

v^{+}(\varphi)\setminus(v^{-}(\varphi)\cup P^{-}),\quad v^{-}(\varphi)% \setminus(v^{+}(\varphi)\cup P^{+}).

Then, $v(\varphi)$ is the disjoint union of $X$ and $Y$ .

By ULIP for $\mathbf{Grz}$ , we find a uniform Lyndon interpolant $\theta$ of

\left(\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi,P^{+},P^{-}\right)

in $\mathbf{Grz}$ . We prove that $\theta$ is also a uniform Lyndon interpolant of $\left(\varphi,P^{+},P^{-}\right)$ in $\mathbf{Grz.2}$ .

1. Since $\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi\to\theta$ , we get $\mathbf{Grz.2}\vdash\varphi\to\theta$ .

2. We have:

	$\displaystyle v^{\circ}(\theta)$	$\displaystyle\subseteq v^{\circ}\left(\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}% \alpha(p)\land\varphi\right)\setminus P^{\circ}$
		$\displaystyle=\bigl{[}v^{\circ}(\varphi)\cup\bigl{\{}\bigl{(}(v^{\bullet}(% \varphi)\setminus v^{\circ}(\varphi)\bigr{)}\cap P^{\circ}\bigr{\}}\bigr{]}% \setminus P^{\circ}$
		$\displaystyle=v^{\circ}(\varphi)\setminus P^{\circ}.$

3. Let $\psi$ be any formula such that $\mathbf{Grz.2}\vdash\varphi\to\psi$ and $v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ . By Fact 10.9, we have

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in v(\varphi)\cup v(\psi)}% \alpha(p)\land\varphi\to\psi.

Since $v(\varphi)\cup v(\psi)$ is the disjoint union of $X$ , $Y$ , and $v(\psi)\setminus v(\varphi)$ , we obtain

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi\to% \bigl{(}\bigwedge_{q\in Y\cup(v(\psi)\setminus v(\varphi))}\alpha(q)\to\psi% \bigr{)}.

(3)

Let $\mathsf{s}$ be the uniform substitution defined as follows:

\mathsf{s}(p):=\begin{cases}\top&\text{if}\ p\notin v^{-}(\varphi)\cup v^{+}(% \psi),\\ \bot&\text{else if}\ p\notin v^{+}(\varphi)\cup v^{-}(\psi),\\ p&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}

Since $\mathbf{K}\vdash p\to\top$ and $\mathbf{K}\vdash\bot\to p$ , by Fact 10.10, we have $\mathbf{K}\vdash\varphi\to\mathsf{s}(\varphi)$ and $\mathbf{K}\vdash\mathsf{s}(\psi)\to\psi$ . Since $\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\top)$ , we have

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi\to% \mathsf{s}\left(\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi\right).

Let $Z$ be the intersection of the following three sets:

Y\cup(v(\psi)\setminus v(\varphi)),\quad v^{-}(\varphi)\cup v^{+}(\psi),\quad v% ^{+}(\varphi)\cup v^{-}(\psi).

Then, it is shown that $Z$ is included in the union of the following three sets:

(v^{+}(\varphi)\cap v^{+}(\psi))\setminus(v^{-}(\varphi)\cup P^{-}),\quad(v^{-% }(\varphi)\cap v^{-}(\psi))\setminus(v^{+}(\varphi)\cup P^{+}),\quad(v^{+}(% \psi)\cap v^{-}(\psi))\setminus v(\varphi).

Moreover, since $v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{\circ}=\emptyset$ , we have $Z\subseteq(v^{+}(\psi)\setminus P^{-})\cup(v^{-}(\psi)\setminus P^{+})$ . Then, by applying the uniform substitution $\mathsf{s}$ to (3), it follows from the above observations that

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\alpha(\bot)\land\bigwedge_{p\in X}\alpha(p)\land\varphi\to% \left(\bigwedge_{\begin{subarray}{c}q\in v^{+}(\psi)\setminus P^{-}\\ \text{or}\ q\in v^{-}(\psi)\setminus P^{+}\end{subarray}}\alpha(q)\to\psi% \right).

We have:

	$\displaystyle v^{\circ}\left(\bigwedge_{\begin{subarray}{c}q\in v^{+}(\psi)% \setminus P^{-}\\ \text{or}\ q\in v^{-}(\psi)\setminus P^{+}\end{subarray}}\alpha(q)\to\psi% \right)\cap P^{\circ}$
	$\displaystyle=\bigl{[}(v^{+}(\psi)\setminus P^{-})\cup(v^{-}(\psi)\setminus P^% {+})\cup v^{\circ}(\psi)\bigr{]}\cap P^{\circ}$
	$\displaystyle=\bigl{[}(v^{\bullet}(\psi)\setminus P^{\circ})\cup v^{\circ}(% \psi)\bigr{]}\cap P^{\circ}$
	$\displaystyle=v^{\circ}(\psi)\cap P^{\circ}$
	$\displaystyle=\emptyset.$

Therefore, we obtain

\mathbf{Grz}\vdash\theta\to\left(\bigwedge_{\begin{subarray}{c}q\in v^{+}(\psi% )\setminus P^{-}\\ \text{or}\ q\in v^{-}(\psi)\setminus P^{+}\end{subarray}}\alpha(q)\to\psi% \right).

We conclude $\mathbf{Grz.2}\vdash\theta\to\psi$ . ∎

Corollary 10.12.

$\mathbf{KC}$ has ULIP.

We have proved the equivalence $(1\Leftrightarrow 4)$ of Theorem 10.1.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP23K03200.

References

[1] Alexander Chagrov and Michael Zakharyaschev. Modal logic, volume 35 of Oxford Logic Guides. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997. Oxford Science Publications.
[2] William Craig. Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22:269–285, 1957.
[3] Melvin Fitting. Proof methods for modal and intuitionistic logics, volume 169 of Synthese Library. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Boston, Mass., 1983.
[4] Dov M. Gabbay. Semantic proof of Craig’s interpolation theorem for intuitionistic logic and extensions. II. In Logic Colloquium ’69 (Proc. Summer School and Colloq., Manchester, 1969), volume Vol. 61 of Stud. Logic Found. Math., pages 403–410. North-Holland, Amsterdam-London, 1971.
[5] Dov M. Gabbay and Larisa L. Maksimova. Interpolation and definability, volume 46 of Oxford Logic Guides. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. Modal and intuitionistic logics.
[6] Taishi Kurahashi. Uniform Lyndon interpolation property in propositional modal logics. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 59(5-6):659–678, 2020.
[7] Roman Kuznets. Proving Craig and Lyndon interpolation using labelled sequent calculi. In Logics in artificial intelligence, volume 10021 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 320–335. Springer, Cham, 2016.
[8] Roman Kuznets. Multicomponent proof-theoretic method for proving interpolation properties. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 169(12):1369–1418, 2018.
[9] Roman Kuznets and Björn Lellmann. Interpolation for intermediate logics via hyper- and linear nested sequents. In Advances in modal logic. Vol. 12, pages 473–492. Coll. Publ., [London], 2018.
[10] Roman Kuznets and Björn Lellmann. Interpolation for intermediate logics via injective nested sequents. Journal of Logic and Computation, 31(3):797–831, 2021.
[11] Roger C. Lyndon. An interpolation theorem in the predicate calculus. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 9:129–142, 1959.
[12] Larisa L. Maksimova. Craig’s theorem in superintuitionistic logics and amalgamable varieties of pseudo-boolean algebras. Algebra i Logika, 16(6):643–681, 741, 1977. English translation in: Algebra and Logic, 16(6), 427–455, 1977.
[13] Larisa L. Maksimova. Interpolation theorems in modal logics. Sufficient conditions. Algebra i Logika, 19(2):194–213, 1980. English translation in: Algebra and Logic, 19(2), 120–132, 1980.
[14] Larisa L. Maksimova. Absence of the interpolation property in modal companions of a Dummett logic. Algebra i Logika, 21(6):690–694, 1982. English translation in: Algebra and Logic, 21(6), 460–462, 1982.
[15] Larisa L. Maksimova. The Lyndon interpolation theorem in modal logics. In Mathematical logic and the theory of algorithms, volume 2 of Trudy Inst. Mat., pages 45–55. “Nauka” Sibirsk. Otdel., Novosibirsk, 1982.
[16] Larisa L. Maksimova. Amalgamation and interpolation in normal modal logic. Studia Logica, 50(3-4):457–471, 1991.
[17] Larisa L. Maksimova. The Lyndon property and uniform interpolation over the Grzegorczyk logic (in Russian). Rossiĭskaya Akademiya Nauk. Sibirskoe Otdelenie. Institut Matematiki im. S. L. Soboleva. Sibirskiĭ Matematicheskiĭ Zhurnal, 55(1):147–155, 2014. English translation in: Siberian Mathematical Journal, 55(1), 118–124, 2014.
[18] Maarten Marx. Interpolation in modal logic. In Algebraic methodology and software technology (Amazonia, 1999), volume 1548 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 154–163. Springer, Berlin, 1999.
[19] Andrew M. Pitts. On an interpretation of second-order quantification in first-order intuitionistic propositional logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57(1):33–52, 1992.
[20] George F. Schumm. Interpolation in ${\rm S}5$ and some related systems. Reports on Mathematical Logic, (6):107–109, 1976.
[21] Kurt Schütte. Der Interpolationssatz der intuitionistischen Prädikatenlogik. Mathematische Annalen, 148:192–200, 1962.
[22] Tatsuya Shimura. Cut-free systems for some modal logics containing ${\rm S}4$ . Reports on Mathematical Logic, (26):39–65, 1992.
[23] Albert Visser. Uniform interpolation and layered bisimulation. In Gödel ’96 (Brno, 1996), volume 6 of Lecture Notes Logic, pages 139–164. Springer, Berlin, 1996.

Lyndon interpolation property for extensions of 𝐒𝟒𝐒𝟒\mathbf{S4}bold_S4 and intermediate propositional logics

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 ULIP for classical propositional logic

Definition 2.1.

Lemma 2.2 (Cf. [6, Proposition 6]).

Theorem 2.3.

Proof.

Theorem 2.4.

Proof.

3 A sufficient condition for ULIP in modal logic

Definition 3.1.

Definition 3.2.

Definition 3.3.

Lemma 3.4 (Cf. [6, Proposition 6]).

Definition 3.5 (p-morphisms).

Definition 3.6 (n𝑛nitalic_n-IP).

Theorem 3.7.

Proof.

Remark 3.8.

4 Some lemmas on matching between clusters

Definition 4.1.

Lemma 4.2.

Proof.

Lemma 4.3.

Proof.

Lemma 4.4.

Proof.

Lemma 4.5.

Proof.

Lemma 4.6.

Proof.

Lemma 4.7.

Proof.

5 Modal companions of 𝐂𝐥𝐂𝐥\mathbf{Cl}bold_Cl

5.1 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐯\mathbf{Triv}bold_Triv

Theorem 5.1 (Maksimova [15]).

Proof.

5.2 𝐒𝟓𝐒𝟓\mathbf{S5}bold_S5

Theorem 5.2 (Fitting [3]).

Proof.

6 Modal companions of 𝐋𝐒𝐋𝐒\mathbf{LS}bold_LS

6.1 𝐆𝐖⁢.2𝐆𝐖.2\mathbf{GW.2}bold_GW bold_.2

Theorem 6.1 (Maksimova [15]).

Proof.

6.2 Γ⁢(𝐋𝐒,2,1)Γ𝐋𝐒21\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)roman_Γ ( bold_LS , 2 , 1 )

Theorem 6.2.

Proof.

6.3 𝐒𝟒⁢.4𝐒𝟒.4\mathbf{S4.4}bold_S4 bold_.4

Theorem 6.3 (Shimura [22]).

Proof.

7 Modal companions of 𝐋𝐕𝐋𝐕\mathbf{LV}bold_LV

7.1 𝐆𝐕𝐆𝐕\mathbf{GV}bold_GV

Theorem 7.1.

Proof.

Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

7.2 Γ⁢(𝐋𝐕,2,1)Γ𝐋𝐕21\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)roman_Γ ( bold_LV , 2 , 1 )

Theorem 7.2.

Proof.

Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

7.3 Γ⁢(𝐋𝐕,ω,1)Γ𝐋𝐕𝜔1\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)roman_Γ ( bold_LV , italic_ω , 1 )

Theorem 7.3.

Proof.

Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

8 Modal companions of 𝐋𝐏2subscript𝐋𝐏2\mathbf{LP}_{2}bold_LP start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

8.1 𝐆𝐖𝐆𝐖\mathbf{GW}bold_GW

Theorem 8.1 (Shimura [22]; Maksimova [17]).

Proof.

Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

8.2 Γ⁢(𝐋𝐏2,2,1)Γsubscript𝐋𝐏221\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)roman_Γ ( bold_LP start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 , 1 )

Theorem 8.2.

Proof.

Lyndon interpolation property for extensions of $\mathbf{S4}$ and intermediate propositional logics

Definition 3.6 ( $n$ -IP).

5 Modal companions of $\mathbf{Cl}$

5.1 $\mathbf{Triv}$

5.2 $\mathbf{S5}$

6 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LS}$

6.1 $\mathbf{GW.2}$

6.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LS},2,1)$

6.3 $\mathbf{S4.4}$

7 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LV}$

7.1 $\mathbf{GV}$

7.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},2,1)$

7.3 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LV},\omega,1)$

8 Modal companions of $\mathbf{LP}_{2}$

8.1 $\mathbf{GW}$

8.2 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},2,1)$

8.3 $\Gamma(\mathbf{LP}_{2},\omega,1)$