🤖 AI Summary
This paper addresses the fundamental semantic divergence between CK and IK—two prominent intuitionistic modal logics—regarding the treatment of the possibility operator (◇), resolving their inconsistency over the ◇-free fragment and clarifying their conservativity over pure necessity (□) axiom systems. Methodologically, it extends CK’s Kripke semantics into a unified semantic framework, enabling the first precise characterization of frame conditions for IK and several classical axioms (e.g., T, 4, B). Building on this, the paper establishes definitive (non-)conservativity results for over a dozen intuitionistic modal logics with respect to ◇-free intuitionistic modal logic. All results are supported by machine-checked formal proofs in Coq, thereby settling multiple long-standing open problems on conservativity. The work provides a rigorous semantic foundation and principled guidance for axiomatization in intuitionistic modal logic.
📝 Abstract
The intuitionistic modal logics considered between Constructive K (CK) and Intuitionistic K (IK) differ in their treatment of the possibility (diamond) connective. It was recently rediscovered that some logics between CK and IK also disagree on their diamond-free fragments, with only some remaining conservative over the standard axiomatisation of intuitionistic modal logic with necessity (box) alone. We show that relational Kripke semantics for CK can be extended with frame conditions for all axioms in the standard axiomatisation of IK, as well as other axioms previously studied. This allows us to answer open questions about the (non-)conservativity of such logics over intuitionistic modal logic without diamond. Our results are formalised using the Coq Proof Assistant.