This package draws on the SMT solver Z3 to provide a programmatic semantics for a number of hyperintensional operators along with a general purpose methodology for developing novel programmatic semantic theories and studying their resulting logics. Rather than computing whether a given sentence is a logical consequence of some set of sentences by hand, these resources allow users to find countermodels or establish logical consequence up to a finite level complexity specified by the user. Instead of only developing a model-theoretic version of a semantics and working out the consequence with pen and paper, this project provides tooling for finding hyperintensional countermodels and establish validity over models up to a user specified level of complexity in a propositional language with the following operators:

• neg for negation
• wedge for conjunction
• vee for disjunction
• rightarrow for the material conditional
• leftrightarrow for the material biconditional
• boxright for the must counterfactual conditional
• circleright for the might counterfactual conditional
• Box for necessity
• Diamond for possibility
• leq for ground read 'sufficient for'
• sqsubseteq for essence read 'necessary for'
• equiv for propositional identity read 'just is for'
• preceq for relevance

Screenshot

NOTE: Additional images can be found here.

Programmatic Semantics

A programmatic methodology in semantics streamlines the otherwise computationally grueling process of developing and testing novel semantic theories and exploring their logics. Although computational systems cannot search the space of all models (typically a proper class), the absence of bitvector countermodels up to a finite level of complexity provides evidence for logical consequence, where the strength of this evidence increases with the range of distinct models surveyed. If finite countermodels exist, users will be able to generate and print those models rather than attempting to do so by hand.

The hyperintensional semantics for the operators indicated above is briefly discussed below. In addition to including semantic clauses for the operators indicated above, this project provides templates and flexible tooling that can be adapted to accommodate new operators. By easing the process of investigating increasingly complex semantic theories, this methodology aims to support the growth and maturity of semantics as a discipline.

Although computational resources are common place, the ability to make use of these resources to develop and explore the implications of novel semantic theories remains limited. For instance, Prover9 and Mace are restricted to first-order and equational statements. However, for the purposes of semantics, it is desirable to: (1) introduce a range of primitive operators; (2) specify novel semantic clauses for those operators; (3) define frame constraints and a space of models for the resulting language; (4) test which sentences are a logical consequence of which; and (5) print readable countermodels if there are any. Rather than displacing model theory and proof theory, developing and testing a programmatic semantics for a language aims to support the study of extensionally adequate logics before attempting to establish completeness.

Installation

pip install model-checker

The project has the z3-solver as a dependency and will be installed automatically. More information can be found in the accessible installation instructions.

Updating

Once installed, you can check the current version of the model-checker with:

model-checker -v

To update to the latest version, run:

model-checker -u

Usage

Run model-checker in the terminal without arguments to create a new project with the following modules:

• semantic.py specifies the Z3 primitives, frame constraints, models, theory of logical consequence, defined semantic terms, theory of propositions, and print instructions for displaying countermodels for the default semantics.
• operators.py specifies the semantic clauses for the primitive operators included in the default language along with a number of defined operators.
• examples.py specifies the settings, a collection of examples, and the protocol for finding and printing countermodels if there are any.

Alternatively, run model-checker -l THEORY_NAME to create a copy of the semantic theory with the name 'THEORY_NAME'. The library of available semantic theories can be found here. Additional theories can be added by submitting a pull request.

After changing to the project directory that you created, run model-checker project_examples.py to find a countermodel if there is any. The example settings specify the following inputs where the defaults are indicated below:

• The number of atomic states to include in each model: N = 3.
• An option to require all sentence letters to be contingent: contingent = False.
• An option to require all sentence letters to have at least one verifier and at least one falsifier: non_empty = False.
• An option to prevent sentence letters from having the null state as a verifier or a falsifier: non_null = False.
• An option to prevent sentence letters from having overlapping verifiers or falsifiers: disjoint = False.
• The maximum time in seconds to spend looking for a model: max_time = 1.

A number of general settings may also be specified with the following:

• An option to print impossible states: print_impssible = False.
• An option to print all Z3 constraints or unsatisfiable core constraints: print_constraints = False.
• An option to print the Z3 model if there is any: print_z3 = False.
• An option to prompt the user to append the output to the current file or to create a new file: save_output = False.

Examples are specified by defining a list as follows:

# CF_CM_1: COUNTERFACTUAL ANTECEDENT STRENGTHENING

CF_CM_1_premises = ['(A \\boxright C)']
CF_CM_1_conclusions = ['((A \\wedge B) \\boxright C)']
CF_CM_1_settings = {
    'N' : 3,
    'contingent' : True,
    'non_null' : True,
    'non_empty' : True,
    'disjoint' : False,
    'max_time' : 1,
}

CF_CM_1_example = [
    CF_CM_1_premises,
    CF_CM_1_conclusions,
    CF_CM_1_settings,
]

The example CF_CM_1_example includes:

• A list of zero or more premises that are treated conjunctively: premises = [].
• A list of zero or more conclusions that are treated disjunctively: conclusions = [].
• A dictionary of settings where the defaults are indicated above.

Alternatively, users can define a general stock of example_settings, reusing these for an number of examples. Users can override these settings from the command line by including the following flags:

• Include -c to set contingent = True.
• Include -d to set disjoint = True.
• Include -e to set non_empty = True.
• Include -n to set non_null = True.
• Include -i to set print_impossibe = True.
• Include -p to set print_constraints = True.
• Include -s to set save_bool = True.
• Include -z to set print_z3 = True.

Additional flags have been included in order to manage the package version:

• Include -h to print help information about the package and its usage.
• Include -v to print the installed version number.
• Include -u to upgrade to the latest version.

Hyperintensional Semantics

This section sketches the underlying semantics. More information can be found in the GitHub repository.

The semantics is hyperintensional insofar as sentences are evaluated at states which may be partial rather than total as in intensional semantic theories. States are modeled by bitvectors of a specified length (e.g., #b00101 has length 5), where state fusion is modeled by the bitwise OR operator |. For instance, #b00101 | #b11001 = #b11101. The atomic states have exactly one occurrence of 1 and the null state has no occurrences of 1. The space of states is finite and closed under fusion.

States are named by lowercase letters in order to print readable countermodels. Fusions are printed using . where a.b is the fusion of the states a and b. A state a is part of a state b just in case a.b = b. States may be either possible or impossible where the null state is required to be possible and every part of a possible state is possible. The states a and b are compatible just in case a.b is possible. A world state is any state that is both possible and includes every compatible state as a part.

Sentences are assigned verifier states and falsifier states where both the verifiers and falsifiers are required to be closed under fusion. A sentence is true at a world state w just in case w includes a verifier for that sentence as a part and false at w just in case w includes a falsifier for that sentence as a part. In order to ensure that sentence letters have at most one truth-value at each world state, a fusion a.b is required to be impossible whenever a is verifier for a sentence letter A and b is a falsifier for A. Additionally, sentence letters are guaranteed to have at least one truth-value at each world state by requiring every possible state to be compatible with either a verifier or falsifier for any sentence letter.

A negated sentence is verified by the falsifiers for the sentence negated and falsified by the verifiers for the sentence negated. A conjunctive sentence is verified by the pairwise fusions of verifiers for the conjuncts and falsified by falsifiers for either of the conjuncts or fusions thereof. A disjunctive sentence is verified by the verifiers for either disjunct or fusions thereof and falsified by pairwise fusions of falsifiers for the disjuncts. Conjunction and disjunction are dual operators obeying the standard idempotence and De Morgan laws. The absorption laws do not hold, nor does conjunction distribute over disjunction, nor vice versa. For a defense of the background theory of hyperintensional propositions, see this paper.

A necessity sentence Box A is true at a world just in case every world state includes a part that verifies A and a possibility sentence Diamond A is true at a world just in case some world state includes a part that verifies A. Given a world state w and state s, an s-alternative to w is any world state to include as parts both s and a maximal part of w that is compatible with s. A must counterfactual conditional sentences A boxright B is true at a world state w just in case its consequent is true at any s-alternative to w for any verifier s for the antecedent of the counterfactual. A might counterfactual conditional sentences A boxright B is true at a world state w just in case its consequent is true at some s-alternative to w for some verifier s for the antecedent of the counterfactual. The semantic theory for counterfactual conditionals is motivated and further elaborated in this accompanying paper. This account builds on Fine 2012 and Fine2012a.

A grounding sentence A leq B may be read 'A is sufficient for B' and an essence sentence A sqsubseteq B may be read 'A is necessary for B'. A propositional identity sentence A equiv B may be read 'A just is for B'. A relevance sentence A preceq B may be read 'A is wholly relevant to B'. The semantics for ground requires every verifier for the antecedent to be a verifier for the consequent, any fusion of a falsifier for the antecedent and consequent to be a falsifier for the consequent, and any falsifier for the consequent to have a part that falsifies the antecedent. The semantics for essence requires every fusion of a verifier for the antecedent and consequent to be a verifier for the consequent, any verifier for the consequent must have a part that verifies the antecedent, and every falsifier for the antecedent to be a falsifier for the consequent. The semantics for propositional identity requires the two arguments to have the same verifiers and falsifiers. The semantics for relevance requires any fusion of verifiers for the antecedent and consequent to be a verifier for the consequent and, similarly, any fusion of falsifiers for the antecedent and consequent to be a falsifier for the consequent. Whereas the first three constitutive operators are interdefinable, relevance is definable in terms of the other constitutive operators but not vice versa:

• A leq B := neg A sqsubseteq neg B := (A vee B) equiv B.
• A sqsubseteq B := neg A leq neg B := (A wedge B) equiv B.
• A equiv B := (A leq B) wedge (B leq A) := (A sqsubseteq B) wedge (B sqsubseteq A).
• A preceq B := (A wedge B) leq B := (A vee B) sqsubseteq B.

Instead of a Boolean lattice as in extensional and intensional semantics theories, the space of hyperintensional propositions forms a non-interlaced bilattice as described in this paper, building on Fine 2017.

More information can be found in the GitHub repository as well as in this recent manuscript.