Paper detail

Undecidable propositional bimodal logics and one-variable first-order linear temporal logics with counting

First-order temporal logics are notorious for their bad computational behaviour. It is known that even the two-variable monadic fragment is highly undecidable over various linear timelines, and over branching time even one-variable fragments might be undecidable. However, there have been several attempts on finding well-behaved fragments of first-order temporal logics and related temporal description logics, mostly either by restricting the available quantifier patterns, or considering sub-Boolean languages. Here we analyse seemingly `mild' extensions of decidable one-variable fragments with counting capabilities, interpreted in models with constant, decreasing, and expanding first-order domains. We show that over most classes of linear orders these logics are (sometimes highly) undecidable, even without constant and function symbols, and with the sole temporal operator `eventually'. We establish connections with bimodal logics over 2D product structures having linear and `difference' (inequality) component relations, and prove our results in this bimodal setting. We show a general result saying that satisfiability over many classes of bimodal models with commuting linear and difference relations is undecidable. As a by-product, we also obtain new examples of finitely axiomatisable but Kripke incomplete bimodal logics. Our results generalise similar lower bounds on bimodal logics over products of two linear relations, and our proof methods are quite different from the proofs of these results. Unlike previous proofs that first `diagonally encode' an infinite grid, and then use reductions of tiling or Turing machine problems, here we make direct use of the grid-like structure of product frames and obtain undecidability by reductions of counter (Minsky) machine problems.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.