Minimal logic is a fragment of intuitionistic logic that rejects not only the classical law of excluded middle (as intuitionistic logic does), but also the principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet). Essentially, from proof-theoretical viewpoint, this means that in minimal logic the bottom $\bot$ is considered as a propositional variable, without any special inference rule involving it.

Question: Is there a semantics $\mathcal{S}$ for minimal logic such that a completeness theorem holds? By completeness theorem I mean a statement of the form (for both propositional and first-order languages):

For every formula $A$, $A$ is provable in minimal logic if and only if $A$ is valid in all $\mathcal{S}$-structures.

I guess such a semantics could be a generalization of intuitionistic Kripke models.

I would like also to have some references about completeness theorem in (propositional and/or first-order) minimal logic.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I find it boggling that one would throw in a gratuitous propositional constant without any axioms relating to it. I find it especially boggling that one would name the constant $\bot$ when it is not a bottom element. $\endgroup$
    – user14972
    Jan 28, 2018 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ Can I ask the reason of the recent downvote? $\endgroup$ Apr 5, 2018 at 19:04

1 Answer 1


Yes, tweaking Kripke semantics based on that for intuitionistic logic does the trick. If I recall right, there are slightly different ways of doing this.

Here's a version for minimal logic and some variants, in a recent paper by Almudena Colacito, Dick de Jongh and Ana Lucia Vargas.

  • $\begingroup$ Great reference, exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! $\endgroup$ Jan 29, 2018 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know which is the first paper where a completeness theorem for (propositional and/or first-order) minimal logic has been proved? Maybe it is already in the paper by Johansson introducing minimal logic (1937), but it is in German and I don't speak German. $\endgroup$ Jan 29, 2018 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Taroccoesbrocco Sorry, no I don't. $\endgroup$ Jan 29, 2018 at 8:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Taroccoesbrocco - you can see also Almudena Colacito's Thesis: Minimal and Subminimal Logic of Negation with some historical references: maybe useful the ref to H.Rasiowa's algebraic semantics (1974). $\endgroup$ Jan 29, 2018 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ @MauroALLEGRANZA - Very useful, thank you! $\endgroup$ Jan 29, 2018 at 9:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.