[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 #
reinterpret— Yan's reinterpretation function∥·∥_P(Definition 32), an instance ofQBSMLFormula.mapAtoms.reinterpret_isNEFree,eval_reinterpret_iff— reinterpretation stays NE-free and is bilaterally equivalent to the original (substitution salva veritate; the classical equivalence ofQxand(Px ∧ Qx) ∨ (¬Px ∧ Qx)lifted to team semantics).ross_monotone,ross_fc,ross_premise,ross_blocked— Ross's paradox: monotonicity is semantically valid, FC pragmatically valid, and the enriched disjunctive premise underivable (the paper's Figure 4.2).asher_monotone,asher_fc,asher_premise,asher_blocked,asher_concl_enriched— Asher's puzzle via reinterpretation of TRIP by FREE (the paper's Figure 4.3), with the non-vacuity of reinterpretation under[·]⁺witnessed at the same state, and the denotational side condition FREE ⊊ TRIP realised globally (asherModel_free_ssubset_trip).heim_fc— Heim's example via reinterpretation of TEACH by TUESDAY (the paper omits the rest of the derivation as parallel to Asher's; so do we).
The reinterpretation function #
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.
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.
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.
Support is invariant under reinterpretation.
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
Equations
- Yan2023.instDecidableEqRossPred x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprRossPred = { reprPrec := Yan2023.instReprRossPred.repr }
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprRossPred.repr Yan2023.RossPred.send prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.RossPred.send")).group prec✝
- Yan2023.instReprRossPred.repr Yan2023.RossPred.burn prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.RossPred.burn")).group prec✝
Instances For
SEND a: the letter is sent (constant atom; a is the letter).
Instances For
BURN a: the letter is burnt.
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
- Yan2023.rossState = {((), fun (x : Core.Logic.Modal.BSML.QVar) => none)}
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
Equations
- Yan2023.instDecidableEqAsherPred x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprAsherPred = { reprPrec := Yan2023.instReprAsherPred.repr }
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprAsherPred.repr Yan2023.AsherPred.free prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.AsherPred.free")).group prec✝
- Yan2023.instReprAsherPred.repr Yan2023.AsherPred.trip prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.AsherPred.trip")).group prec✝
Instances For
FREE is the contextually salient sub-predicate of TRIP.
Equations
- Yan2023.subFree Yan2023.AsherPred.free Yan2023.AsherPred.trip = True
- Yan2023.subFree x✝¹ x✝ = False
Instances For
Equations
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree Yan2023.AsherPred.free Yan2023.AsherPred.trip = isTrue trivial
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree Yan2023.AsherPred.free Yan2023.AsherPred.free = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree._proof_1
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree Yan2023.AsherPred.trip Yan2023.AsherPred.free = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree._proof_2
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree Yan2023.AsherPred.trip Yan2023.AsherPred.trip = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelAsherPredSubFree._proof_3
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
The premise □∃x(Fx ∧ Tx): Nicholas wants a free trip.
Equations
Instances For
Reinterpreting TRIP by FREE in the conclusion yields exactly the
disjunctive want □∃x((F ∧ T)x ∨ (¬F ∧ T)x) — definitional.
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
- Yan2023.asherState = {(true, fun (x : Core.Logic.Modal.BSML.QVar) => none)}
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
Equations
- Yan2023.instDecidableEqHeimPred x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprHeimPred.repr Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday")).group prec✝
- Yan2023.instReprHeimPred.repr Yan2023.HeimPred.teach prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Yan2023.HeimPred.teach")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- Yan2023.instReprHeimPred = { reprPrec := Yan2023.instReprHeimPred.repr }
TUESDAY is the contextually salient sub-predicate of TEACH.
Equations
- Yan2023.subTuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.teach = True
- Yan2023.subTuesday x✝¹ x✝ = False
Instances For
Equations
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.teach = isTrue trivial
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday._proof_1
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.teach Yan2023.HeimPred.tuesday = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday._proof_2
- Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday Yan2023.HeimPred.teach Yan2023.HeimPred.teach = isFalse Yan2023.instDecidableRelHeimPredSubTuesday._proof_3
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 conclusion □∃x TEACHx: I want to teach next semester.
Equations
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.