Lecture: H5116, F 8:00-9:40
Section: HGW2403, F(e) 18:30-20:10
Lecture: HGX205, M 18:30-21
Section: HGW2403, F 18:30-20
- Prove that \(\neg\Box(\Diamond\varphi\wedge\Diamond\neg\varphi)\) is equivalent to \(\Box\Diamond\varphi\rightarrow\Diamond\Box\varphi\). What you have assumed?
- Define strategy and winning strategy for modal evaluation games. Prove Key Lemma: \(M,s\vDash\varphi\) iff V has a winning strategy in \(G(M,s,\varphi)\). Prove that modal evaluation games are determined, i.e. either V or F has a winning strategy.
And all exercises for Chapter 2 (see page 23, open minds)
- Let \(T\) with root \(r\) be the tree unraveling of some possible world model, and \(T’\) be the tree unraveling of \(T,r\). Show that \(T\) and \(T’\) are isomorphic.
- Prove that the union of a set of bisimulations between \(M\) and \(N\) is a bisimulation between the two models.
- We define the bisimulation contraction of a possible world model \(M\) to be the “quotient model”. Prove that the relation links every world \(x\) in \(M\) to the equivalent class \([x]\) is a bisimulation between the original model and its bisimulation contraction.
And exercises for Chapter 3 (see page 35, open minds): 1 (a) (b), 2.
- Prove that modal formulas (under possible world semantics) have ‘Finite Depth Property’.
And exercises for Chapter 4 (see page 47, open minds): 1 – 3.
- Prove the principle of Replacement by Provable Equivalents: if \(\vdash\alpha\leftrightarrow\beta\), then \(\vdash\varphi[\alpha]\leftrightarrow\varphi[\beta]\).
- Prove the following statements.
- “For each formula \(\varphi\), \(\vdash\varphi\) is equivalent to \(\vDash\varphi\)” is equivalent to “for each formula \(\varphi\), \(\varphi\) being consistent is equivalent to \(\varphi\) being satisfiable”.
- “For every set of formulas \(\Sigma\) and formula \(\varphi\), \(\Sigma\vdash\varphi\) is equivalent to \(\Sigma\vDash\varphi\)” is equivalent to “for every set of formulas \(\Sigma\), \(\Sigma\) being consistent is equivalent to \(\Sigma\) being satisfiable”.
- Prove that “for each formula \(\varphi\), \(\varphi\) being consistent is equivalent to \(\varphi\) being satisfiable” using the finite version of Henkin model.
And exercises for Chapter 5 (see page 60, open minds): 1 – 5.
Exercises for Chapter 6 (see page 69, open minds): 1 – 3.
- Show that “being equivalent to a modal formula” is not decidable for arbitrary first-order formulas.
Exercises for Chapter 7 (see page 88, open minds): 1 – 6. For exercise 2 (a) – (d), replace the existential modality E with the difference modality D. In the clause (b) of exercise 4, “completeness” should be “correctness”.
- Show that there are infinitely many non-equivalent modalities under T.
- Show that GL + Id is inconsistent and Un proves GL.
- Give a complete proof of the fact: In S5, Every formula is equivalent to one of modal depth \(\leq 1\).
Exercises for Chapter 8 (see page 99, open minds): 1, 2, 4 – 6.
- Let \(\Sigma\) be a set of modal formulas closed under substitution. Show that \[(W,R,V),w\vDash\Sigma~\Leftrightarrow~ (W,R,V’),w\vDash\Sigma\] hold for any valuation \(V\) and \(V’\). Define a \(p\)-morphism between \((W,R),w\) and \((W’,R’),w’\) as a “functional bisimulation”, namely bisimulation regardless of valuation. Show that if there is a \(p\)-morphism between \((W,R),w\) and \((W’,R’),w’\), then for any valuation \(V\) and \(V’\), we have \[(W,R,V),w\vDash\Sigma~\Leftrightarrow~ (W’,R’,V’),w\vDash\Sigma.\]
Exercises for Chapter 9 (see page 99, open minds).
Exercise the last
Exercises for Chapter 10 and 11 (see page 117 and 125, open minds).