CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAdvanced Topology and Set TheoryAdvanced Algebra and Logic

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Guards, Bounds, and Generalized Semantics

van Benthem, Johan·2005·Journal of Logic, Language and Information
DOI 10.1007/s10849-005-5786-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10849-005-5786-y

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Andréka, H., van Benthem, J., and Németi, I., 1998, “Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217–274. · DOI
  2. Andréka, H., Hodkinson, I., and Németi, I., 1999, “Finite algebras of relations are representable on finite sets,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 243–267. · DOI
  3. Andréka, H., Madarasz, J., and Németi, I., to appear, “Logics of relativistic space-time,” in M. Aiello, J. van Benthem and I. Pratt (eds.), Handbook of Spatial Reasoning, Kluwer-Springer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  4. Feferman, S., 1969, “Persistent and invariant formulas for outer extensions,” Compositio Mathematica 20, 29–52.
  5. Grädel, E., 1999A, “Decision procedures for guarded logics,” in Automated Deduction – Proceedings CADE 16, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1632, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 31–51. · DOI
  6. Grädel, E., 1999B, “On the restraining power of guards,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 1719-1742. · DOI
  7. Grädel, E., 1999C, “The decidability of guarded fixed point logic,” in J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema (eds.), JFAK Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, CD-ROM http://turing.wins.uva.nl/~j50/cdrom/, Amsterdam University Press.
  8. Hoogland, E. and Marx, M., 2002, “Interpolation and definability in guarded fragments,” Studia Logica 70, 373–409. · DOI
  9. Hoogland, E., Marx, M., and Otto, M., 1999, “Beth definability for the guarded fragment,” in H. Ganzinger, D. McAllester, and A. Voronkov (eds.), Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning, LPAR 6, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1705, 273–285, Springer, Berlin. · DOI
  10. Kerdiles, G., 2001, Saying it with Pictures: A Logical Landscape of Conceptual Graphs, Dissertation DS-2001-09, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
  11. Marx, M., 2001, “Tolerance logic,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 353–373. · DOI
  12. Marx, M. and Venema, Y., 1997, Multi-Dimensional Modal Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht. · DOI
  13. Montague, R., 1970, “Pragmatics and intensional logic,” Synthese 22, 68–94. · DOI
  14. Németi, I., 1985, “Cylindric-relativized set algebras have strong amalgamation,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(3), 689–700. · DOI
  15. Németi, I., 1995, “Decidability of weakened versions of first-order logic,” in Logic Colloquium 92, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 177–241.
  16. Németi, I., 1996, “Fine-structure analysis of first-order logic,” in M. Marx, M. Masuch, and L. Pólos (eds.), Arrow Logic and Multi-Modal Logic, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 221–247.
  17. ten Cate, B., 2005, Model Theory for Extended Modal Languages, Dissertation, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. · DOI
  18. van Benthem, J., 1983, Modal Logic and Classical Logic, Bibliopolis, Napoli.
  19. van Benthem, J., 1996A, “Complexity of contents versus complexity of wrappings,” in M. Marx, M. Masuch, and L. Pólos (eds.), Arrow Logic and Multimodal Logic, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford and Cambridge University Press, 203–219.
  20. van Benthem, J., 1996B, Exploring Logical Dynamics, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
  21. van Benthem, J., 1999, “The range of modal logic,” Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 9(2/3), 407–442. · DOI
  22. van Benthem, J., 2001, “Modal logic in two gestalts,” in M. de Rijke, H. Wansing and M. Zakharyashev (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. II, Uppsala 1998, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 73–100.
  23. van der Hoek, W. and de Rijke, M., 1993, “Generalized quantifiers and modal logic,” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 2, 19–50. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
van Benthem, J.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
van Benthem, Johan
ORCID
van Benthem, Johan
Venue
Journal of Logic, Language and Information
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-06
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
263-279
ISSN
  • 0925-8531 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-9583
DOI
10.1007/s10849-005-5786-y
OpenAlex
W2162343864
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Logic Language and Information (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical reports
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Advanced Topology and Set Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Advanced Algebra and Logic
Keywords
guarded fragment, first-order logic, satisfiability, assignment model, fixed-point logic, decidability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review