Bulletin of the Section of Logic

Volume 14/4 (1985), pp. 144–148

reedition 2007 [original edition, pp. 144–149]

Lafayette de Moraes

ON DISCUSSIVE SET THEORY

Abstract
This paper was read at the VII Simpōsio Latino Americano de
Lōgica Matemātica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil, August 2,
1985.

In this note we describe a discussive set theory which is related to a

certain modal set theory as discussive propositional logic is related to the
system S5 of Lewis.

1. The Modal System ZFM

Our starting system is the modal system of da Costa and de Alcântara
[1] ZFM. ZFM is a modal set theory based on S5 with quantification and
contingent equality S5∗ [3].

The system S5∗

The system S5∗ is a first-order modal logic with contingent equality (see
[3]), defined as follows:
I. Primitive Symbols:
a) Connectives: ∨ and ¬(→, ∧ and ↔ are defined as usual);
b) The necessity operator: 2 (the possibility operator 3 is defined
in terms of 2 as usual);
c) The universal quantifier: ∀ (the existential quantifier ∃ is defined
in terms of ∀ as usual);
On Discussive Set Theory 145

d) The symbol of equality: =;

e) A set of predicate variables: ϕ, ψ, χ, . . .;
f) Individual terms: a denumerable family of individual variables
and a denumerable family of individual constants;
g) Parenthesis: (,).
The usual syntactic notions, such as the notions of formula, free and
bound occurrences of variables in a formula etc. are introduced as usual.
II. Axiom Schemes:
A1) α, where α is an instance of a classical (propositional) tautology;
A2) ∀x(α → β) → (α − ∀xβ), where the variable x does not occur
free in α;
A3) ∀xα(x) → α(t), where the term t is free fir the variable x in
α(x);
A4) x = x, where x is any variable;
A5) x = y → (α(x) ↔ α(y)), with the common restrictions for
contingent equality;
A6) 2(α → β) → (2α → 2β);
A7) 2α → α;
A8) 3α → 23α.
III. Rules:
R1) From α and α → β to infer β;
R2) From α to infer ∀xα;
R3) From α to infer 2α.

If α is provable in S5∗ , we write ` α; Γ ` α, where Γ is a set of

formulas, means that for α1 , α2 , . . . , αn in Γ, we have that ` (α1 ∧ . . . ∧
αn ) → α in S5∗ . As is well known, S5∗ has a Kripke semantics relative to
which it is sound and complete.

The System ZPM

The system ZPM constitutes a modal set theory (or, better, a theory of
attributes). Its languages is the language of S5∗ , whose set of predicate
symbols contains only the membership symbol ∈. The axiom schemes
and rules of ZFM are those of S5∗ , A1)-A8) and R1)-R3) above plus the
following:
146 Lafayette de Moraes

M0) 2(x = y) → (α(x) ↔ α(y)), where y is free for x in the occurrences

it substitutes for x in α(x);
M1) 2(∀t(t ∈ x ↔ t ∈ y) → x = y));
M2) ∃t2∀z(z ∈ t ↔ (z = x ∨ z = y));
M3) ∃z2∀t(t ∈ z ↔ ∀y(y ∈ t → y ∈ x));
M4) ∃z2∀t(t ∈ z ↔ ∃y(y ∈ x ∧ t ∈ y));
M5) ∃y2∀x(x ∈ y ↔ (α(x) ∧ x ∈ z));
M6) ∀x((∃t(t ∈ x)) → (∃y)2(y ∈ x ∧ ∀t(t ∈ x → t 6∈ y))).
ZFM could be reinforced with the introduction of axioms such as
the axiom of infinity, choice and replacement. ZPM so reinforced will be
denoted by ZPM0 .
ZFM and ZFM0 have semantics similar to that of M Lp of Gallin [2],
relative to which it is sound and complete.
The system ZPM (and also ZPM0 ) is a strong system of attributes,
since da Costa and de Alcântara [1] proved the following theorems:
Theorem 1. IL and MLp of Gallin [2] are interpretable in ZPM.
Theorem 2. Usual ZP and ZPM0 are equiconsistent.

2. The Discussive System JM

Similarly as Jaśkowski defined his discussive system of propositional calcu-
lus in [4], by means of S5, we define a corresponding discussive set theory
(or, if one prefers, a general theory of attributes), by means of ZFM.
By ∀α, where α is a formula, we denote any formula of the form
∀x1 . . . ∀xn α, where x1 , x2 , . . . , xn contains all free variables of α.
Then we define the discusive system JM as follows: α is a theorem of
JM if, and only if, 3∀α is a thesis of ZFM.

I. Axiom Schemes:
JM1) If α is an axiom of ZFM, then 2∀α is an axiom of JM.
II. Rules:
RJM1) From 2∀α and 2∀(α → β) to infer 2∀β;
RJM2) From 2α to infer α;
On Discussive Set Theory 147

RJM3) From 2∀α to infer 2∀2α;

RJM4) From 3∀α to infer α;
RJM5) From 2∀(β → α(x)) to infer 2∀(β → ∀xα(x));
RJM6) From ∀α to infer α (α has no free variable).

In order to prove that the above axiomatization is a complete axiom-

atization of JM, we need the following two lemmas.

Lemma 1. If α is a theorem of ZFM, then 3∀α is a theorem of JM.

Lemma 2. If α is a theorem of ZFM, then 2∀α is a theorem of JM.

Theorem 3. The above axiomatization is a complete axiom system for

JM.

Remark 1. Our method of defining JM by means by ZFM can be em-

ployed to obtain a discussive set theory starting with any modal set theory.
So to every modal set theory there is a corresponding discussive set theory.

Remark 2. Our method can ba applied to obtain higher-order discussive

logics starting with higher-order modal logics such that of Gallin [2].

This paper ie a summary of the talk given in the Logic Seminar run
by Professor N. C. A. da Costa in the Department of Mathematics of the
Catholic University of Sao Paulo. The underlying logic of JM was used by
Professor da Costa in his studies of pragmatic truth.

References
[1] N. C. A. da Costa and L.P. de Alcântara, Remarks on Higher-Order
Modal Logic, Relatório Interno 217, IMECC-UKICAMP.
[2] D. Gallin, Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, North-
Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1975.
[3] G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell, An Introduction to Modal
Logic, Methuen, London, 1968.
148 Lafayette de Moraes

[4] S. Jaśkowski, Rachunek zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecz-

nych, Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sectio A, Vol. 1,
No. 5, Toruń, 1948 (English version: Propositional calculus for contradic-
tory deductive systems, Studia Logica 24 (1969), pp. 143–157).

University of Campinas
(FE-UNICAMP)
13100 - Campinas, SP
Brazil