Varieties of positive modal algebras and structural completeness

T. Moraschini

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Varieties of positive modal algebras and structural completeness

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that only three varieties of positive K4-algebras are structurally complete, and in that setting structural completeness coincides with hereditary structural completeness.

desk verdict A genuinely new and mostly convincing classification of structurally complete positive K4-varieties, held back only by an unshown finite computation and a typo in the term set. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01659 v1 pith:FBORV2J2 submitted 2019-08-01 math.LO

T. Moraschini This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.LO MSC 03B4503C0508B2008C15

keywords positivemodallogicstructuralcompletenessadmissiblerulesabstractalgebraicK4-algebrasfreeone-generatedalgebraalgebraizationofGentzensystems

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies varieties of positive modal algebras—the algebraic counterparts of the positive fragment of modal logic, where negation is dropped and only $\wedge$, $\vee$, $\square$, $\lozenge$, $0$, and $1$ remain. Its central result is a sharp classification: a nontrivial variety of positive K4-algebras is structurally complete exactly when it is one of three explicitly named varieties, and in that setting structural completeness coincides with hereditary structural completeness. A structurally complete variety is one in which every admissible inference rule is already derivable, so the classification says that the admissible-rule structure of positive K4 logic is rigid: almost every variety of positive K4-algebras admits admissible rules that are not derivable. Along the way the paper shows that the free one-generated positive S4-algebra is finite, even though the variety of positive S4-algebras is not locally finite and the free two-generated algebra is infinite. This matters because it contrasts with full modal logic, where infinitely many hereditarily structurally complete K4 varieties are known.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the free one-generated positive S4-algebra shown in Figure 1. It is built from the seven modal iterates of a single generator under $\square$ and $\lozenge$ (the set $\Sigma$ in the paper) by taking the free seven-generated bounded distributive lattice and quotienting by the inequalities in a set $\Gamma$ read off from the order relations among those iterates; the paper states that a computer check confirms the resulting lattice is exactly the one drawn. This finite algebra supplies all eleven one-generated subdirectly irreducible positive S4-algebras in Figure 2, from which the covers in the subvariety lattice are computed. The companion machinery is the algebra $D_4$ satisfying $\square\lozenge x \approx \square x$ and $\lozenge\square x \approx \lozenge x$; Theorem 6.7 shows these equations axiomatize $V(D_4)$, and Theorem 9.6 uses projectivity of $D_4$ in $V(D_4)$ to push hereditary structural completeness through all subquasivarieties.

What would settle it

Re-run the mechanical computation of $C/\mathrm{Cg}(\Gamma)$ from the generator set $\Sigma$ and inequality set $\Gamma$ and compare the resulting lattice with Figure 1; in particular, verify that it has exactly eleven subdirectly irreducible homomorphic images matching Figure 2. If the quotient or the list of images differs, Theorem 8.6 and hence the structural-completeness trichotomy of Theorem 9.7 no longer follow from the proof given.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the main discovery is Theorem 9.7: for a non-trivial variety $K$ of positive K4-algebras, the properties of being structurally complete, being hereditarily structurally complete, and being one of $V(B_2)$, $V(C_2)$, or $V(D_4)$ are equivalent. Here $B_2$ is the two-element positive modal algebra with $\lozenge x \approx 0$ and $\square x \approx 1$; $C_2$ is the two-element positive S4-algebra term-equivalent to bounded distributive lattices; and $D_4$ is the four-element positive S4-algebra axiomatized by $\square\lozenge x \approx \square x$ and $\lozenge\square x \approx \lozenge x$. For positive S4-algebras the paper proves a tighter equivalence (Theorem 9.6): active, plain, and hereditary structural completeness all coincide, and each is equivalent to satisfying those two equations. The proof reduces the problem to the shape of the free one-generated positive S4-algebra, which is finite and explicitly described, and then to a description of the bottom of the lattice of subvarieties of positive S4-algebras. A separate result (Theorem 9.8) characterizes passively structurally complete varieties of positive K4-algebras as exactly $V(B_2)$ or those whose zero-generated free algebra is $C_2$ and which exclude the three-element algebra $D_3$.

Load-bearing premise

The classification depends on the computer-verified claim that the lattice reduct of the free one-generated positive S4-algebra is exactly the quotient $C/\mathrm{Cg}(\Gamma)$ drawn in Figure 1, a computation the paper does not display; the later list of eleven subdirectly irreducible algebras and the three-variety trichotomy are built on that diagram.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 9.7 is right, the admissible-rule problem for positive K4 logic has only three possible answers: in $V(B_2)$, $V(C_2)$, and $V(D_4)$ every admissible rule is derivable, while in every other nontrivial variety some admissible rule fails to be derivable.
Structural completeness and hereditary structural completeness coincide throughout positive K4, so no variety there occupies the intermediate zone of being structurally complete while having a structurally incomplete subquasivariety.
For positive S4-algebras, active structural completeness, structural completeness, and hereditary structural completeness are equivalent, so checking the two equations $\square\lozenge x \approx \square x$ and $\lozenge\square x \approx \lozenge x$ decides all three properties.
The free one-generated positive S4-algebra is finite while the free two-generated one is infinite; hence the variety $PS4$ is not locally finite, and the finite/infinite boundary in generation rank is sharp.
There are infinitely many passively structurally complete varieties of positive S4-algebras and infinitely many that are not, so passive completeness does not collapse in the same way.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One consequence the author leaves implicit: for every non-exceptional variety of positive K4-algebras, a concrete non-derivable admissible quasi-equation must exist, so searches for explicit admissible-rule bases can be safely directed at the three exceptional varieties.
The sharp contrast with the full-signature setting, where infinitely many hereditarily structurally complete K4 varieties are known, suggests that dropping negation dramatically coarsens admissibility; a testable extension would be to determine whether other positive fragments of transitive modal logics, such as positive Grz or positive GL, also have only finitely many structurally complete variet
Because the free-algebra description rests on a delegated computer computation, formalizing the quotient calculation with a proof assistant would convert the classification into a fully verified theorem and close the one gap a skeptical reader could point to.
The finite one-generated/infinite two-generated boundary suggests studying the n-generated free positive S4-algebras for $n \geq 2$ to locate precisely where local finiteness fails, with $n=2$ already known to be infinite.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this paper gives a sharp trichotomy for structural completeness in positive K4-algebras. Theorem 9.7 says a non-trivial variety is SC exactly when it is one of V(B2), V(C2), V(D4), and that SC and HSC coincide there. That is new, it contrasts with the full-signature K4 case where there are infinitely many HSC varieties, and it is a real step forward for the admissible-rules program in positive modal logic.

What it does well: the paper is careful and honest. The proofs are detailed, the Priestley-duality setup is used correctly, and the results on the free one-generated positive S4-algebra (finite, with a displayed diagram) are genuinely useful. The bottom-of-the-lattice description and the splitting lemmas are also well organized. I found no circularity or hidden dependence on the author's own prior work.

Where it is soft: Theorem 5.1 identifies the lattice reduct of the free one-generated positive S4-algebra with the quotient C/Cg(Γ) and says the identification can be checked mechanically via UACalc. No input, output, or independent verification is given. On top of that, Equation (4) lists the seven terms with □3□x duplicated and 3□3x missing, so the input to the purported computation is ambiguous as printed. Since Sections 6, 8, and 9 all read off the eleven one-generated subdirectly irreducible algebras and the covers from Figure 1, an error here would propagate directly into the main trichotomy. I think the intended description is probably right—the diagram and Fact 5.2 make the intended seven terms clear, and the later arguments are coherent—but as a referee I would want the computation actually shown or a certified verification, plus a corrected term list. Fact 5.2 itself is stated without proof, though it looks routine.

The central classification is not built on sand. The architecture is solid and the unverified step is a finite, checkable computation rather than a conceptual gap. With the computation supplied or independently reproduced, I would expect the main results to stand.

Who this is for: readers working on admissible rules, positive modal logic, or varieties of modal algebras. It is a subfield paper, not a field-redefining one, but it settles a concrete and previously open question. It deserves a serious referee, and I would send it out rather than desk-reject. Recommendation: accept after the authors either prove the quotient identification in the paper or provide the UACalc input and output, and fix the term list in Equation (4).

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies positive modal algebras, i.e. the ⟨∧,∨,□,3,0,1⟩-subreducts of modal algebras, with emphasis on positive K4- and S4-algebras. It proves that the variety of positive S4-algebras is not locally finite although its free one-generated algebra is finite (Theorem 5.1, Corollary 5.4), describes the bottom of the subvariety lattice of positive S4-algebras up to height 4 (Theorem 8.6), and uses this information to classify structurally complete varieties of positive K4-algebras. The central classification result (Theorem 9.7) states that a nontrivial variety of positive K4-algebras is structurally complete if and only if it is hereditarily structurally complete, and this happens exactly for V(B2), V(C2), and V(D4). A companion characterization of passively structurally complete varieties is given in Theorem 9.8. The paper also provides algebraic and duality-theoretic tools, including a study of well-connected positive S4-algebras and splitting algebras.

Significance. If the results are correct, they give a remarkably rigid picture of structural completeness in the positive fragment: unlike the full-signature case, where there are infinitely many hereditarily structurally complete varieties of K4-algebras, the positive K4 case admits exactly three nontrivial structurally complete varieties. The paper contains substantial original work: the finiteness of the one-generated free positive S4-algebra, the description of the bottom of the subvariety lattice, and the structural-completeness trichotomy. The proofs are generally detailed, and the main conceptual architecture is coherent; no circularity is apparent, and the paper openly imports the external characterization Theorem 1.1. The main reservation concerns the load-bearing verification of the free one-generated algebra in Theorem 5.1, which is delegated to an unshown mechanical computation with ambiguous input data. Because the classification of Section 9 inherits the one-generator picture, this issue must be resolved before the central claims can be fully certified.

major comments (3)

[§5, Theorem 5.1] The proof of Theorem 5.1 delegates the crucial identification of the bounded lattice reduct of the free one-generated positive S4-algebra with the quotient C/Cg(Γ) to the statement that this 'can be checked mechanically, e.g. using the Universal Algebra Calculator [24]'. No input, output, or independent verification is supplied. This quotient and the accompanying Figure 1 are the scaffolding for the rest of the paper: the list of eleven one-generated subdirectly irreducible algebras in Section 6, the cover analysis in Section 8, and the exclusions in Lemmas 9.4–9.5 all depend on it. The authors should provide a verifiable certificate for the computation, for instance the UACalc input and output, or replace the mechanical check with a hand proof.
[§5, Equation (4)] The printed term set in Equation (4) is internally inconsistent: it lists seven slots but contains □3□x twice and omits 3□3x. However, Fact 5.2 and the tuple used immediately after the equation require seven distinct terms, including 3□3x. This ambiguity directly affects the definition of Γ and hence the claimed quotient C/Cg(Γ). The set Σ and all subsequent uses of the tuple (x, □x, 3□x, □3□x, 3x, □3x, □3□x) must be corrected to a consistent list of seven distinct generators.
[§6, Figure 2] The assertion that there are exactly eleven one-generated subdirectly irreducible positive S4-algebras is justified by 'inspection' of Figure 1. This is acceptable only if Figure 1 is known to be correct. Given the unresolved verification of Theorem 5.1 and the ambiguity in Equation (4), the reader cannot independently reproduce the list in Figure 2. After fixing the generator set and the quotient computation, the authors should confirm that Figure 2 and the associated cover assertions remain unchanged.

minor comments (6)

[§5, proof of Theorem 5.1] In the sentence 'Clearly f preserves 0 and 1, since t0 = 0 and t1 = 0', the second identity should be t1 = 1.
[§6, proof of Theorem 6.7] The proof first says 'Our goal is to show that A ≅ C4' but later concludes that the algebra is D4; the notation should be made consistent.
[§9, proof of Theorem 9.8] In the proof of (ii)⇒(i), the line 'C2 ∈ H(B2)' should presumably read 'C2 ∈ H(B)', where B is the finitely generated subalgebra constructed in the preceding sentence.
[§8, proof of Corollary 8.5] In the final sentence of the proof of item 1, 'V(A, D3)' should likely be 'V(A, Ca3)', since the claim concerns covers of V(Ca3).
[§5, Fact 5.2] Fact 5.2, which supplies the inequalities encoded in Γ, is stated without proof. Since it plays a central role in defining the quotient, a short derivation of the displayed order relations would improve verifiability.
[§9, Example 9.9] The notation switches between An and A−n; the positive reduct should be introduced with a single consistent symbol and used uniformly throughout the example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the structural-completeness classification is derived from external criteria plus an independent, though under-reported, computation of the one-generated free algebra.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The main external tool, Theorem 1.1, is imported from the literature and supplies the abstract characterizations of ASC, PSC, SC, and HSC; the paper then applies these criteria to concrete algebras rather than presupposing the trichotomy it proves. Theorem 3.8 identifies positive K4/S4-algebras as positive subreducts by an explicit embedding into a modal algebra, not by definition. The classification in Theorems 9.6 and 9.7 is obtained by combining Theorem 1.1 with the cover analysis in Sections 6 and 8, which in turn rests on the one-generated free algebra described in Theorem 5.1. That free-algebra theorem is an independent (finite) verification: it constructs a candidate algebra A, states that the quotient C/Cg(Γ) is its lattice reduct, and checks the universal property case by case. It does not define the free algebra in terms of the structural-completeness conclusion. The only self-citation, [44], occurs in an introductory remark on PSC and joint embedding and is not used in any later proof, so it is not load-bearing. The genuine weakness of the paper is not circularity but verification: Theorem 5.1 delegates the key identification of C/Cg(Γ) with Figure 1 to an unshown Universal Algebra Calculator check, and the displayed term set Σ in (4) appears to list □3□x twice while omitting 3□3x, making the computation's input ambiguous. These are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not a reduction of any result to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The proof depends on standard universal algebra and Priestley-style duality, on prior characterizations of structural completeness, and on one unshown finite computation inside Theorem 5.1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Theorem 1.1 external characterizations of ASC, PSC, SC, and HSC are correct.
Used in Theorems 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8 as the bridge between algebra and structural completeness.
domain assumption Celani-Jansana duality between positive modal algebras and K+ spaces is correct.
Underlies the representation theorems and Corollary 3.6, used throughout Sections 4 through 9.
ad hoc to paper The lattice reduct of the free one-generated positive S4-algebra equals C/Cg(Γ), verified only by a UACalc computation.
Stated in the proof of Theorem 5.1 without the computation; the classification of subdirectly irreducible algebras and the bottom lattice depends on it.
standard math Jónsson's lemma and Birkhoff's subdirect representation theorem are correct.
Used to identify covers and to transfer subdirectly irreducible membership in Sections 6 through 9.
standard math Every non-trivial finitely generated algebra of finite type has a simple homomorphic image.
Used in the proof of (ii) implies (i) in Theorem 9.8.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Varieties of positive modal algebras and structural completeness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBORV2J2

@misc{pith2026190801659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Varieties of positive modal algebras and structural completeness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBORV2J2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01659}
}

read the original abstract

Positive modal algebras are the positive-subreducts of modal algebras. We prove that the variety of positive S4-algebras is not locally finite. On the other hand, the free one-generated positive S4-algebra is shown to be finite. Moreover, we describe the bottom part of the lattice of varieties of positive S4-algebras. Building on this, we characterize (passively, hereditarily) structurally complete varieties of positive K4-algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[24]

Freese, E

R. Freese, E. Kiss, and M. Valeriote. Universal Algebra Calculator. Available at: www. uacalc.org, 2011

work page 2011
[1]

Balan, A

A. Balan, A. Kurz, and J. Velebil. Positive fragments of coalgebraic logics. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 11(3):1–51, 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Beklemishev

L. Beklemishev. Positive provability logic for uniform reﬂection principles. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 165(1):82–105, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Beklemishev

L. Beklemishev. A Note on Strictly Positive Logics and Word Rewriting Systems. In Larisa Maksimova on Implication, Interpolation, and Deﬁnability , volume 15 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic, pages 61–70. Springer-Verlag, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

C. Bergman. Structural completeness in algebra and logic. In Algebraic logic (Budapest, 1988), volume 54 of Colloq. Math. Soc. J ´anos Bolyai, pages 59–73. North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1991

work page 1988
[5]

C. Bergman. Universal Algebra: Fundamentals and Selected Topics. Chapman & Hall Pure and Applied Mathematics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011

work page 2011
[6]

Bezhanishvili and R

G. Bezhanishvili and R. Grigolia. Locally tabular extensions of MIPC. In M. Za- kharyaschev, K. Segerberg, M. de Rijke, and H. Wansing, editors, Advances in Modal Logic, volume 2, pages 101–120, 2001

work page 2001
[7]

Blackburn, M

P . Blackburn, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema.Modal logic. Number 53 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

work page 2001

Show all 59 references

[8]

W. J. Blok and D. Pigozzi. Algebraizable logics, volume 396 of Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. A.M.S., Providence, January 1989

1989
[9]

Burris and H

S. Burris and H. P . Sankappanavar. A course in Universal Algebra . The millennium edition, 2012

2012
[10]

S. A. Celani and R. Jansana. A new semantics for positive modal logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(1):1–18, 1997

1997
[11]

S. A. Celani and R. Jansana. Priestley duality, a Sahlqvist theorem and a Goldblatt- Thomason theorem for positive modal logic. Logic Journal of the I.G.P .L., 7:683–715, 1999

1999
[12]

S. A. Celani. Simple and subdirectly irreducibles bounded distributive lattices with unary operators. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences , 2006:20, 2006

2006
[13]

Chagrov and M

A. Chagrov and M. Zakharyaschev. Modal Logic, volume 35 of Oxford Logic Guides . Oxford University Press, 1997

1997
[14]

A. Citkin. On structurally complete superintuitionistic logics. Soviet Mathematics Dok- lady, 19:816–819, 1978

1978
[15]

Czelakowski

J. Czelakowski. Protoalgebraic logics, volume 10 of Trends in Logic—Studia Logica Library . Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001

2001
[16]

Czelakowski and W

J. Czelakowski and W. Dziobiak. Congruence distributive quasivarieties whose ﬁnitely subdirectly irreducible members form a universal class. Algebra Universalis, 27(1):128– 149, 1990

1990
[17]

B. A. Davey and H. A. Priestley. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press, New York, second edition, 2002

2002
[18]

A. Day. Splitting algebras and a weak notion of projectivity. Algebra Universalis, 5:153– 162, 1975

1975
[19]

J. M. Dunn. Positive modal logic. Studia Logica, 55(2):301–317, 1995

1995
[20]

Dzik and M

W. Dzik and M. Stronkowski. Almost structural completeness; an algebraic approach. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 167(7):525–556, July 2016

2016
[21]

Dzik and A

W. Dzik and A. Wro ´nski. Structural completeness of G ¨odel’s and Dummett’s proposi- tional calculi. Studia Logica, 32:69–73, 1973

1973
[22]

J. M. Font. Abstract Algebraic Logic - An Introductory Textbook, volume 60 of Studies in Logic - Mathematical Logic and Foundations . College Publications, London, 2016

2016
[23]

J. M. Font and R. Jansana. A general algebraic semantics for sentential logics , volume 7 of Lecture Notes in Logic. A.S.L., second edition 2017 edition, 2009. VARIETIES OF POSITIVE MODAL ALGEBRAS AND STRUCTURAL COMPLETENESS 37

2017
[25]

Gehrke, H

M. Gehrke, H. Nagahashi, and Y. Venema. A Sahlqvist theorem for distributive modal logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 131(1-3):65–102, 2005

2005
[26]

V . A. Gorbunov. Lattices of quasivarieties. Algebra and Logic, 15:275–288, 1976

1976
[27]

V . A. Gorbunov.Algebraic theory of quasivarieties. Siberian School of Algebra and Logic. Consultants Bureau, New York, 1998

1998
[28]

G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. A new introduction to modal logic . Routledge, London, 1996

1996
[29]

R. Iemhoff. On the admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(1):281–294, 2001

2001
[30]

R. Jansana. Full models for positive modal logic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 48(3):427– 445, 2002

2002
[31]

Jeˇr´abek

E. Jeˇr´abek. Admissible rules of modal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(4):73–92, 2005

2005
[32]

P . T. Johnstone.Stone Spaces, volume 3 of Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics . Cambridge University Press, 1982

1982
[33]

P . T. Johnstone. Vietoris Locales and Localic Semilattices. InContinuous lattices and their Applications, volume 101, pages 155–180. Marcel Dekker, 1985

1985
[34]

J ´onsson

B. J ´onsson. Topics in universal algebra , volume 250 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970

1970
[35]

K¨ohler and D

P . K¨ohler and D. Pigozzi. Varieties with equationally deﬁnable principal congruences. Algebra Universalis, 11:213–219, 1980

1980
[36]

M. Kracht. Tools and techniques in modal logic , volume 142 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1999

1999
[37]

M. Kracht. Modal consequence relations. In Handbook of Modal Logic, volume 3, 491–545. Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2006

2006
[38]

L. L. Maksimova and V . V . Rybakov. A lattice of normal modal logics.Algebra and Logic, 13:105–122, 1974

1974
[39]

A. I. Mal’cev.The metamathematics of algebraic systems, collected papers: 1936-1967. Ams- terdam, North-Holland Pub. Co., 1971

1936
[40]

McKenzie

R. McKenzie. Equational bases and nonmodular lattice varieties. Transactions of the Americal Mathematical Society, 174:1–43, 1972

1972
[41]

R. N. McKenzie, G. F. McNulty, and W. F. Taylor.Algebras, lattices, varieties. Vol. I. The Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Mathematics Series. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Monterey, CA, 1987

1987
[42]

J. C. C. McKinsey and A. Tarski. The algebra of topology. Annals of Mathematics , 45:141–191, 1944

1944
[43]

Metcalfe and C

G. Metcalfe and C. R ¨othlisberger. Admissibility in ﬁnitely generated quasivarieties. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 9(2):1–19, 2013

2013
[44]

Moraschini, J

T. Moraschini, J. G. Raftery, and J. J. Wannenburg. Singly generated quasivarieties and residuated structures. Submitted manuscript, 2019

2019
[45]

L. A. Nguyen. Constructing the Least Models for Positive Modal Logic Programs. Fundamenta Informaticae, 42(2):29–60, 2000

2000
[46]

L. A. Nguyen. On the complexity of fragments of modal logics. In Kings College Publications, editor, Advances in Modal Logic, volume 5, pages 249–268, 2005

2005
[47]

J. S. Olson, J. G. Raftery, and C. J. van Alten. Structural completeness in substructural logics. Logic Journal of the I.G.P .L., 16(5):455–495, 2008

2008
[48]

Palmigiano

A. Palmigiano. Coalgebraic semantics for positive modal logic. In H. P . Gumm, editor, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 82. Elsevier, 2003

2003
[49]

H. A. Priestley. Representation of distributive lattices by means of ordered Stone spaces. Bull. London Math. Soc., 2:186–190, 1970. 38 TOMMASO MORASCHINI

1970
[50]

H. A. Priestley. Ordered topological spaces and the representation of distributive lattices. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Third Series , 24:507–530, 1972

1972
[51]

J. G. Raftery. Correspondences between Gentzen and Hilbert systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(3):903–957, 2006

2006
[52]

J. G. Raftery. Admissible Rules and the Leibniz Hierarchy. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 57(4):569–606, 2016

2016
[53]

J. G. Raftery and K. ´Swirydowicz. Structural completeness in relevance logics. Studia Logica, 104(3):381–387, 2016

2016
[54]

Rautenberg

W. Rautenberg. Klassische und nichklassische Aussagenlogik. Vieweg Verlag, 1979

1979
[55]

Rebagliato and V

J. Rebagliato and V . Verd´u. Algebraizable Gentzen systems and the deduction theorem for Gentzen systems. Mathematics Preprint Series 175, University of Barcelona, 1995

1995
[56]

L. Rieger. Zamerka o t. naz. svobodnyh algebrah s zamykanijami. Czechoslovak Mathe- matical Journal, 7:16–20, 1957

1957
[57]

V . V . Rybakov. Hereditarily structurally complete modals logics.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 60(1):266–288, March 1995

1995
[58]

V . V . Rybakov.Admissibility of logical inference rules , volume 136 of Studies in Logic . Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997

1997
[59]

Wro ´nski

A. Wro ´nski. Overﬂow rules and a weakening of structural completeness. In Rozwazania o Filozﬁi Prawdziwej. Jerezmu Perzanowskiemuw Darze , 67–71. Uniwersytetu Jagiello´nskiego, Krak ´ow, 2009. E-mail address: moraschini@cs.cas.cz Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Aca...

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Freese, E

R. Freese, E. Kiss, and M. Valeriote. Universal Algebra Calculator. Available at: www. uacalc.org, 2011

work page 2011

[2] [1]

Balan, A

A. Balan, A. Kurz, and J. Velebil. Positive fragments of coalgebraic logics. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 11(3):1–51, 2015

work page 2015

[3] [2]

Beklemishev

L. Beklemishev. Positive provability logic for uniform reﬂection principles. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 165(1):82–105, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [3]

Beklemishev

L. Beklemishev. A Note on Strictly Positive Logics and Word Rewriting Systems. In Larisa Maksimova on Implication, Interpolation, and Deﬁnability , volume 15 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic, pages 61–70. Springer-Verlag, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [4]

C. Bergman. Structural completeness in algebra and logic. In Algebraic logic (Budapest, 1988), volume 54 of Colloq. Math. Soc. J ´anos Bolyai, pages 59–73. North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1991

work page 1988

[6] [5]

C. Bergman. Universal Algebra: Fundamentals and Selected Topics. Chapman & Hall Pure and Applied Mathematics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011

work page 2011

[7] [6]

Bezhanishvili and R

G. Bezhanishvili and R. Grigolia. Locally tabular extensions of MIPC. In M. Za- kharyaschev, K. Segerberg, M. de Rijke, and H. Wansing, editors, Advances in Modal Logic, volume 2, pages 101–120, 2001

work page 2001

[8] [7]

Blackburn, M

P . Blackburn, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema.Modal logic. Number 53 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

work page 2001