Abstract:The 19th century geometrist Jacobi famously said that one should always try to invert every geometrical theorem. But his advice applies much more widely! Choose any class of relational frames, and you can study its valid modal axioms. But now turn the perspective around, and fix some modal axiom beforehand. You can then find the class of frames where the axiom is guaranteed to hold by 'modal correspondence' analysis - and we all know the famous examples of that. It may look as if this style of analysis is tied to one particular semantics, say relational frames: but it is not. Correspondence analysis also works on neighbourhood models, telling us, e.g., just which modal axioms collapse these to binary relational frames. We will show how this same style of inverse thinking also applies to modern dynamic logics of information change. Basic axioms for knowledge after information update !A tell us what sort of operation must be used for updating a given model M to a new one incorporating A. Likewise, we will show how modal axioms for (conditional) beliefs that hold after revision actions *A actually fix one particular operation of changing the relative plausibility orderings which agents have on the universe of possible worlds. And finally, going back to the traditional heartland of logic, we show how we can read standard predicate-logical axioms as constraints on the sort of abstract 'process models' that lie at the heart of first-order semantics, properly understood. In all these cases, in order for the inversion to work and illuminate a given subject, we need to step back and reconsider our standard modeling. But that, I think, is what Shahid Rahman is all about. 2 Standard modal frame correspondences One of the most attractive features of the semantics of modal logic is the match between modal axioms and corresponding patterns in the accessibility relation between worlds. This can be seen by giving a class of models, say temporal or epistemic, and then axiomatizing its set of modal validities. On top of the minimal modal logic which holds under all circumstances, one gets additional axioms reflecting more specific structure. For general background to modal completeness theory, as well as the rest of this paper, we refer to the Handbook of Modal Logic (P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem & F. Wolter, eds.) which has just come out with Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1997.

Man Muss Immer Umkehren