Talk:Normal modal logic

K for Kripke? and Merge into Kripke semantics?
Does the 'K' stand for Kripke? If so, shouldn't this article just be merged into Kripke semantics? Normal modal logic would just forward to that article, then. 209.173.109.104 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer: yes and probably. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally did not include it in the Kripke semantics article because I thought it was an important notion on its own, and expected it would develop into a more informative article. However, since it stayed essentially unchanged as a stub for five years, I guess it might be better to merge it in Kripke semantics after all. — Emil J. 11:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So it looks like this conversation is old, but I figure I should address this anyway for newer users. The K might stand for Kripke, but this article should definitely not be merged with Kripke semantics. K does minimally follow from Kripke's semantics but there are other kinds of systems (e.g., axiomatic systems) that often include K but are not instances of Kripke semantics. Whatever K stands for verbally, at root it's just a deductive schema, and people were already discussing it around 2,000 years ago. --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some confusion might stem from the fact that K is both an axiom and a modal logic. In any case the basic idea is that there are axiomatic systems that can be proven to contain all and only those theorems as are contained in Kripke's minimal K logic, and which therefore have every right to be called K logics themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitspeter (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur, normal modal logic is not a proper subtopic of Kripke semantics, so a merge there is out of the question. I'm not proposing it, but if any merge happened at all, it would have to be with modal logic or something like classes of modal logics. 85.178.210.32 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)