Im trying to prove or refute that ⋄□A→A characterizes symmetry. I can construct a counterexample, where [W,R, V] would be an interpretation W = {w1,w2}, and the accessibility Relations w1 Rw2, w2 Rw3, Hence the Kripke Frame [W,R] is symmetric. Now Im trying to define a variable assignment that would show that symmetry doesnt hold


I think you need to show that it indeed characterizes symmetry.

Since looking at your start formula:

$\diamond \square A \rightarrow A$

the contra positive must hold:

$\neg \diamond \square A \leftarrow \neg A$

Applying the definitions of $\square A \leftrightarrow \neg \diamond \neg A$ and $\diamond A \leftrightarrow \neg \square \neg A$ you can derive:

$\neg \neg \square \neg \neg \diamond \neg A \leftarrow \neg A$

which then can be simplefied to:

$\neg A \rightarrow \square \diamond \neg A$

which looks very similar to the definiton of symmetry in modal logic:

$P \rightarrow \square \diamond P$

Also you have a little typo in $w_2 R w_3$, which probably should be $w_2 R w_1$. I think you can find the rest you need here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/.

To show that it characterizes symmetry you have to show that $(F \models \diamond \square A \rightarrow A) \Leftrightarrow (F$ is symmetric). You can do this by proving each implication direction separately. Remember that for a frame $F=<W,R>$ with $F \models \diamond \square A \rightarrow A$, it must hold that forall models of the frame $M=<W,R,V>$, $M \models \diamond \square A \rightarrow A$


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.