Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Yan2023

[Yan23]: Monotonicity under desire as a neglect-zero effect #

Chapter 4 of [Yan23] defends an upward-monotonic semantics for desire verbs against three classical puzzles — Ross's paradox under want ([Ros44]; the desiderative version is due to [Crn11]), Asher's puzzle (reported in [Hei92]) and Heim's own teach-on-Tuesdays example ([Hei92]) — by reducing all three to free-choice inferences in QBSML ([AvO23]): the monotonic step is semantically valid on the NE-free fragment, the paradoxical "ok with the unwanted alternative" inference is pragmatically valid only for the enriched conclusion, and the enriched conclusion is not derivable from the premise. The dissertation calls the general effect — semantic weakening licensing pragmatic neglect-zero consequences — the weakening effect triggered by monotonicity (WEM); this chapter is its desire-verb case study. Where no overt disjunction occurs (Asher, Heim), the paper's one new formal object — the reinterpretation function ∥·∥_P (Definition 32) — supplies it: a predicate Q with a contextually salient sub-predicate P is reinterpreted as (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ Q), licensed because the two are classically equivalent (eval_reinterpret_iff) yet pragmatically distinct under [·]⁺.

This file derives the chapter's account from the QBSML substrate (Core/Logic/Modal/QBSML/FreeChoice.lean): the □-FC fact it invokes (Fact 13) is boxFC_Q; the quantified variant needed for Asher and Heim is boxExiFC_Q; the semantic validity of the monotonic steps is support_disj_inl / support_nec_mono. The verbs want / it is ok are the Hintikka-style / over a bouletic accessibility relation, exactly as in the paper (§4.4.1; the positive semantics of want itself is deferred to the dissertation's Chapter 5).

Main declarations #

The reinterpretation function #

def Yan2023.reinterpret {Var : Type u_1} {Const : Type u_2} {Pred : Type u_3} (sub : PredPredProp) [DecidableRel sub] (P : Pred) :

Reinterpretation ∥·∥_P ([Yan23] Definition 32): rewrite each atom Q t whose predicate has P as a (contextually salient) sub-predicate as the disjunction (P t ∧ Q t) ∨ (¬P t ∧ Q t), and commute with every connective (QBSMLFormula.mapAtoms).

sub P Q plays the paper's side condition P ⊂ Q. That condition is denotational there (the denotation of P a proper subset of Q's), but the paper leaves open against which model it is checked — in the agent's own desire-state denotations it must fail for blocking to arise, so it is only sensible against a common-ground/global model (realised by the two-world asherModel below, asherModel_free_ssubset_trip). sub therefore stays an unconstrained contextual parameter, which eval_reinterpret_iff shows is truth-conditionally harmless; the salience requirement is likewise contextual and not part of the function.

The paper's language L_D (its Definition 24) has primitive , derived , and no , so Definition 32 has no / clauses: the .poss clause here recovers its derived- behaviour definitionally, and .univ extends the function to the full QBSMLFormula language. The .ne clause is a totality filler — the paper defines ∥·∥ on the NE-free fragment only.

Equations
  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For

    Equation lemma: reinterpretation at a variable atom. Not @[simp] — unfolding is opt-in.

    Equation lemma: reinterpretation at a constant atom.

    theorem Yan2023.reinterpret_isNEFree {Var : Type u_1} {Const : Type u_2} {Pred : Type u_3} (sub : PredPredProp) [DecidableRel sub] (P : Pred) {φ : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLFormula Var Const Pred} (h : φ.IsNEFree) :

    Reinterpretation preserves NE-freeness.

    Substitution salva veritate #

    The classical equivalence of Qx and (Px ∧ Qx) ∨ (¬Px ∧ Qx) justifying reinterpretation ([Yan23] §4.3.2) holds bilaterally in team semantics — for unenriched formulas. Under [·]⁺ the two sides diverge, which is the entire point: the enriched reinterpreted formula carries free-choice commitments the original does not.

    theorem Yan2023.eval_reinterpret_iff {W : Type u_1} {Var : Type u_2} {Domain : Type u_3} {Const : Type u_4} {Pred : Type u_5} [DecidableEq W] [DecidableEq Var] [Fintype Var] [DecidableEq Domain] [Fintype Domain] (M : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLModel W Domain Const Pred) (sub : PredPredProp) [DecidableRel sub] (P : Pred) (φ : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLFormula Var Const Pred) (b : Bool) (s : Finset (Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.Index W Var Domain)) :

    Substitution salva veritate ([Yan23] §4.3.2): reinterpretation is bilaterally equivalent to the original — ∥φ∥_P and φ are supported and anti-supported by exactly the same states. This is the team-semantic form of the classical equivalence ∀x Qx ≡ ∀x((Qx ∧ Px) ∨ (Qx ∧ ¬Px)) the paper invokes to license reinterpretation. Holds for any sub and any formula (the paper's conditions on sub — sub-predicatehood, salience — govern felicity, not truth); eval_mapAtoms_iff reduces it to the two atom equivalences.

    theorem Yan2023.support_reinterpret_iff {W : Type u_1} {Var : Type u_2} {Domain : Type u_3} {Const : Type u_4} {Pred : Type u_5} [DecidableEq W] [DecidableEq Var] [Fintype Var] [DecidableEq Domain] [Fintype Domain] (M : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLModel W Domain Const Pred) (sub : PredPredProp) [DecidableRel sub] (P : Pred) (φ : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLFormula Var Const Pred) (s : Finset (Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.Index W Var Domain)) :

    Support is invariant under reinterpretation.

    theorem Yan2023.antiSupport_reinterpret_iff {W : Type u_1} {Var : Type u_2} {Domain : Type u_3} {Const : Type u_4} {Pred : Type u_5} [DecidableEq W] [DecidableEq Var] [Fintype Var] [DecidableEq Domain] [Fintype Domain] (M : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLModel W Domain Const Pred) (sub : PredPredProp) [DecidableRel sub] (P : Pred) (φ : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLFormula Var Const Pred) (s : Finset (Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.Index W Var Domain)) :

    Anti-support is invariant under reinterpretation.

    Ross's paradox under desire #

    "John wants to send the letter. ⇒ John wants to send the letter or burn it." ([Yan23] §4.1.3, after [Crn11]; deontic original [Ros44].) The monotonic step is semantically valid (ross_monotone, the [Want]A ⇒ [Want](A ∨ B) mode of [Yan23] Table 4.1, classified semantically valid in §4.4.3); the paradoxical "ok to burn" follows by □-FC only from the enriched disjunctive premise (ross_fc), which the agent's actual desire state supports the premise of (ross_premise) but not the enriched conclusion (ross_blocked) — the paper's Figure 4.2. Enrichment placement follows Fact 13's official wide form [□(· ∨ ·)]⁺ rather than the figures' elliptical □[· ∨ ·]⁺.

    Ross-paradox predicates: sending and burning the letter.

    Instances For
      @[implicit_reducible]
      Equations
      @[implicit_reducible]
      Equations
      def Yan2023.instReprRossPred.repr :
      RossPredStd.Format
      Equations
      Instances For

        John's bouletic state: a single desire-world where the letter is sent and not burnt, reflexively accessible.

        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          The Ross evaluation state: the single desire-world with the empty assignment.

          Equations
          Instances For

            Semantic validity of the monotonic step: □SEND a ⊨ □(SEND a ∨ BURN a) — disjunction introduction under the bouletic (support_disj_inl + support_nec_mono).

            Pragmatic validity of the FC step ([Yan23] (26), instance of Fact 13): [□(SEND a ∨ BURN a)]⁺ ⊨ ◇SEND a ∧ ◇BURN a — from the enriched disjunctive want, both "it is ok to send" and the paradoxical "it is ok to burn". Direct instance of boxFC_Q.

            The premise is assertable: John's desire state supports the enriched [□SEND a]⁺.

            The block ([Yan23] Figure 4.2): John's desire state does not support the enriched disjunctive want [□(SEND a ∨ BURN a)]⁺ — were it assertable, □-FC would force an accessible burn-world, and there is none. The paradox dissolves: ◇BURN a is licensed only by a premise the discourse never grants.

            Asher's puzzle #

            "Nicholas wants a free trip on the Concorde. ⇒ Nicholas wants a trip on the Concorde." ([Hei92], reported from Asher; [Yan23] §4.3.2.) No overt disjunction — the FC trigger is supplied by reinterpreting TRIP by its salient sub-predicate FREE-TRIP: ∥TRIP x∥ = (F ∧ T)x ∨ (¬F ∧ T)x. The premise is □∃x(Fx ∧ Tx) — the paper's ◻∃xFREEx unabbreviated, per its footnote treating the generalization as conjunction elimination (TRIP(x) ∧ FREE(x) ⇒ TRIP(x)) and its §4.5 gloss [Want](FREE ∧ TRIP) ⇒ [Want]TRIP; the unabbreviated form is also what makes the monotonic step QBSML-valid without a lexical meaning postulate. The paper's (27) displays use FREE elliptically for the subscripted FREE_TRIP form, so its conclusion ◊∃x¬FREEx is our ◇∃x(¬Fx ∧ Tx).

            Asher-puzzle predicates: being free and being a trip (on the Concorde).

            Instances For
              @[implicit_reducible]
              Equations
              @[implicit_reducible]
              Equations
              def Yan2023.instReprAsherPred.repr :
              AsherPredStd.Format
              Equations
              Instances For

                FREE is the contextually salient sub-predicate of TRIP.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Fx ∧ Tx: a free trip.

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    ¬Fx ∧ Tx: a non-free trip — the unwanted disjunct reinterpretation introduces.

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Reinterpreting TRIP by FREE in the conclusion yields exactly the disjunctive want □∃x((F ∧ T)x ∨ (¬F ∧ T)x) — definitional.

                      theorem Yan2023.asher_monotone {W : Type u_1} {Domain : Type u_2} [DecidableEq W] [DecidableEq Domain] [Fintype Domain] (M : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.QBSMLModel W Domain Unit AsherPred) {s : Finset (Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.Index W Core.Logic.Modal.BSML.QVar Domain)} (h : Core.Logic.Modal.QBSML.support M asherPremise s) :

                      Semantic validity of the monotonic step: □∃x(Fx ∧ Tx) ⊨ □∃xTx (conjunction elimination under under ), for any model.

                      The unwarranted inference ([Yan23] (27) and §4.4.3): the enriched reinterpreted conclusion [□∃x∥Tx∥_F]⁺ licenses, by quantified □-FC, both "ok with a free trip" and "ok with a non-free trip" — the latter being what makes the monotonic conclusion sound wrong.

                      Nicholas's bouletic state against a two-world background: in the desire-world true every trip is free; the non-desire world false has a non-free trip; only the desire-world is bouletically accessible.

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        The Asher evaluation state: the desire-world with the empty assignment.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          The paper's denotational side condition FREE ⊊ TRIP holds in the global model: FREE ⊆ TRIP at every world, strictly at the non-desire world. (In the desire-worlds themselves the inclusion is not strict — necessarily so, since blocking requires no accessible non-free trip; see reinterpret.)

                          The premise is assertable: the desire state supports [□∃x(Fx ∧ Tx)]⁺.

                          The block ([Yan23] Figure 4.3): the desire state does not support the enriched reinterpreted conclusion [□∃x∥Tx∥_F]⁺ — by asher_fc it would force an accessible non-free-trip witness, and all trips in Nicholas's desire-worlds are free. "Ok with a non-free trip" is licensed only by a premise the discourse never grants.

                          Reinterpretation is pragmatically non-vacuous ([Yan23] §4.4.3: "it is possible to have a counterexample where [∃xQx]⁺ is supported but [∃x((Px ∨ ¬Px) ∧ Qx)]⁺ is not" — displayed there with the (Px ∨ ¬Px) ∧ Qx shape rather than Definition 32's). The unreinterpreted enriched conclusion [□∃xTx]⁺ IS supported at the very state where asher_blocked refutes the enriched reinterpreted form — the two classically equivalent formulas (eval_reinterpret_iff) come apart under [·]⁺, which is the paper's whole point.

                          Heim's example #

                          "I want to teach on Tuesdays next semester. ⇒ I want to teach next semester." ([Hei92]; [Yan23] §4.3.3.) Same shape as Asher's puzzle: TEACH is reinterpreted by its salient sub-predicate TEACH-ON-TUESDAY, and quantified □-FC then licenses the unjustified "ok to teach on non-Tuesdays". The paper omits the rest of the derivation as parallel to Asher's (§4.4.3: "the details … are omitted"); so do we — the blocking countermodel is isomorphic to asher_blocked's. The paper also sketches an alternative ◊-FC route via the conditional-desire rephrasing of the example (its (17)–(18)); that variant is not formalized here.

                          Heim-example predicates: being on Tuesday and being a teaching (next semester).

                          Instances For
                            @[implicit_reducible]
                            Equations
                            def Yan2023.instReprHeimPred.repr :
                            HeimPredStd.Format
                            Equations
                            Instances For
                              @[implicit_reducible]
                              Equations

                              TUESDAY is the contextually salient sub-predicate of TEACH.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                TUEx ∧ TEACHx: a Tuesday teaching.

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For

                                  ¬TUEx ∧ TEACHx: a non-Tuesday teaching.

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For

                                    The unwarranted inference ([Yan23] §4.4.3, "Reinterpretation of TEACH"): the enriched reinterpreted conclusion [□∃x∥TEACHx∥_TUE]⁺ licenses "ok to teach on a non-Tuesday" by quantified □-FC.