• ### $\aleph_1$ and the modal $\mu$-calculus(1704.03772)

March 27, 2019 cs.LO, math.LO
For a regular cardinal $\kappa$, a formula of the modal $\mu$-calculus is $\kappa$-continuous in a variable x if, on every model, its interpretation as a unary function of x is monotone and preserves unions of $\kappa$-directed sets. We define the fragment $C_{\aleph_1}(x)$ of the modal $\mu$-calculus and prove that all the formulas in this fragment are $\aleph_1$-continuous. For each formula $\phi(x)$ of the modal $\mu$-calculus, we construct a formula $\psi(x) \in C_{\aleph_1 }(x)$ such that $\phi(x)$ is $\kappa$-continuous, for some $\kappa$, if and only if $\phi(x)$ is equivalent to $\psi(x)$. Consequently, we prove that (i) the problem whether a formula is $\kappa$-continuous for some $\kappa$ is decidable, (ii) up to equivalence, there are only two fragments determined by continuity at some regular cardinal: the fragment $C_{\aleph_0}(x)$ studied by Fontaine and the fragment $C_{\aleph_1}(x)$. We apply our considerations to the problem of characterizing closure ordinals of formulas of the modal $\mu$-calculus. An ordinal $\alpha$ is the closure ordinal of a formula $\phi(x)$ if its interpretation on every model converges to its least fixed-point in at most $\alpha$ steps and if there is a model where the convergence occurs exactly in $\alpha$ steps. We prove that $\omega_1$, the least uncountable ordinal, is such a closure ordinal. Moreover we prove that closure ordinals are closed under ordinal sum. Thus, any formal expression built from 0, 1, $\omega$, $\omega_1$ by using the binary operator symbol + gives rise to a closure ordinal.
• ### Fixed-point elimination in the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus (extended version)(1803.01552)

March 5, 2018 cs.LO, math.LO
It is a consequence of existing literature that least and greatest fixed-points of monotone polynomials on Heyting algebras-that is, the alge- braic models of the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus-always exist, even when these algebras are not complete as lattices. The reason is that these extremal fixed-points are definable by formulas of the IPC. Consequently, the $\mu$-calculus based on intuitionistic logic is trivial, every $\mu$-formula being equiv- alent to a fixed-point free formula. We give in this paper an axiomatization of least and greatest fixed-points of formulas, and an algorithm to compute a fixed-point free formula equivalent to a given $\mu$-formula. The axiomatization of the greatest fixed-point is simple. The axiomatization of the least fixed- point is more complex, in particular every monotone formula converges to its least fixed-point by Kleene's iteration in a finite number of steps, but there is no uniform upper bound on the number of iterations. We extract, out of the algorithm, upper bounds for such n, depending on the size of the formula. For some formulas, we show that these upper bounds are polynomial and optimal.
• ### Fixed-point elimination in the intuitionistic propositional calculus(1601.00402)

Jan. 4, 2016 math.CT, cs.LO, math.LO
It is a consequence of existing literature that least and greatest fixed-points of monotone polynomials on Heyting algebras-that is, the algebraic models of the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus-always exist, even when these algebras are not complete as lattices. The reason is that these extremal fixed-points are definable by formulas of the IPC. Consequently, the $\mu$-calculus based on intuitionistic logic is trivial, every $\mu$-formula being equivalent to a fixed-point free formula. We give in this paper an axiomatization of least and greatest fixed-points of formulas, and an algorithm to compute a fixed-point free formula equivalent to a given $\mu$-formula. The axiomatization of the greatest fixed-point is simple. The axiomatization of the least fixed-point is more complex, in particular every monotone formula converges to its least fixed-point by Kleene's iteration in a finite number of steps, but there is no uniform upper bound on the number of iterations. We extract, out of the algorithm, upper bounds for such n, depending on the size of the formula. For some formulas, we show that these upper bounds are polynomial and optimal.