The logic of vague categories

Alessandra Palmigiano; Apostolos Tzimoulis; Claudette Robinson; Nachoem M. Wijnberg; Willem Conradie

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The logic of vague categories

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 the basic logic of vague categories is sound and complete over graded formal contexts.

desk verdict A real but modest completeness result for many-valued polarity semantics, proved by a standard canonical model construction that leans more heavily on the authors' own prior work than the appendix fully admits. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04816 v1 pith:USUXVRD6 submitted 2019-08-13 math.LO

Willem Conradie , Alessandra Palmigiano , Claudette Robinson , Apostolos Tzimoulis , Nachoem M. Wijnberg This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.LO MSC 03B4503B5003G10

keywords non-distributivemodallogicmany-valuedsemanticspolarity-basedformalconceptanalysisvaguecategoriesmulti-marketcompetitioncompletenesstheoremroughconcepts

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

This paper proves a completeness theorem for the basic normal lattice-based modal logic: a sequent is provable exactly when it is true in every many-valued enriched formal context, where object-attribute incidence and concept membership take values in a residuated lattice of truth degrees rather than just true or false. The intended reading is that categories, such as collections of firms, markets, and consumer groups, can be genuinely graded, so statements like "firm $a$ is active in market $x$" or "$b$ is strategically similar to $a$" have degrees. A sympathetic reader should care because this supplies a proof-theoretic backbone for reasoning with vague, non-sharp categories, and the paper sketches how such models can represent multi-market competition and strategic similarity. The technical route is a canonical model built from many-valued filters and ideals of the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the many-valued enriched formal context: a polarity $P=(A,X,I)$ with an $A$-valued incidence relation $I$, together with two $A$-valued relations $R_\square$ and $R_\Diamond$ that are compatible with $I$, so that the induced operators on the concept lattice $P^+$ are a complete normal lattice expansion. The decisive identities define the canonical frame: $I(f,i)=\bigvee_{\varphi}(f(\varphi)\otimes i(\varphi))$, $R_\Diamond(i,f)=\bigvee_{\varphi}(f(\varphi)\otimes i(\Diamond\varphi))$, and $R_\square(f,i)=\bigvee_{\varphi}(f(\square\varphi)\otimes i(\varphi))$ over proper $A$-filters and $A$-ideals. These identities make the Truth Lemma come down to residuation tautologies of the underlying truth-value algebra, which is why the soundness and completeness proof goes through without distributivity.

What would settle it

The result would be settled by finding a residuated lattice A and an enriched formal A-context in which some sequent is valid but not derivable in L. Concretely, the fragile step is the equivalence $\top \vdash \square\varphi$ iff $\top \vdash \varphi$ in Lemma A.1(4); a reader could look for a normal lattice expansion C for which the one-point extension C' with a new top element and $\square 1' = 1'$ fails to be normal, which would break the canonical model construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem A.8, is that the basic normal $L$-logic $L$ is sound and complete with respect to the class of polarity-based $A$-frames, i.e. enriched formal $A$-contexts. In other words, the theorems of the minimal modal logic of arbitrary bounded lattices with a box and diamond operator coincide exactly with the sequents valid over all many-valued concept lattices arising from such contexts. The authors establish this by constructing a canonical graph-based $A$-model whose points are proper $A$-filters and proper $A$-ideals of the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra, and proving a Truth Lemma: the extension and intension of every formula are given by evaluating the formula at those filters and ideals. This exports the earlier two-valued polarity semantics for non-distributive modal logic to a graded setting and is offered as a formal foundation for the theory of vague categories.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every unprovable sequent can be separated in some algebra of truth values and modal operators to which a new top element can be added without breaking the modal laws; the proof cites this algebraic completeness from earlier work rather than proving it here, and the whole canonical-frame construction rests on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the theorem is right, the basic logic already captures all sequents that hold in every graded concept context, so no additional axioms are needed for many-valued reasoning at the basic level.
The same canonical-model strategy can be applied to axiomatic extensions of the basic logic, yielding complete many-valued frames for logics with additional axioms.
In the managerial reading, modal formulas receive explicit numeric degrees, so questions about dominance, strategic similarity, and market connectedness can be studied quantitatively.
The concept lattice of any enriched formal $A$-context remains a complete lattice, so hierarchical subsumption of vague categories coexists with graded truth values.

Reading between the lines

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

The completeness argument is modular enough that the authors' conjecture about more expressive languages is plausible: adding further modal operators would likely leave the filter-ideal construction intact, as long as the needed adjunction identities hold.
A testable extension would take real firm-by-market data, fix a small residuated lattice of degrees, and compare the computed similarity and dominance degrees against observed competitive behaviour such as entry or forbearance.
Read as a graded version of rough set approximations, the two modal operators provide quantitative lower and upper approximations of vague concepts, so the completeness theorem may transfer to a many-valued rough concept analysis.

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

The thing to know: this paper does prove what it claims. The basic normal lattice-based modal logic is sound and complete with respect to many-valued enriched formal contexts, and the proof is a recognizable canonical model construction. The result is genuine, though narrower than the title suggests.

The new contribution is the explicit completeness theorem for this specific class of many-valued polarity-based frames. The paper is honest that the semantics was adumbrated in [7, Section 7.2] and that the proof is adapted from [5, Appendix A] and [12, Appendix B]. The canonical model argument is standard and the central claim is plausible. Lemma A.2 and the truth lemma are spelled out in useful detail, and the writing is clear. The multi-market competition section is explicitly a sketch, so I would not count it as part of the scientific contribution.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The appendix is not self-contained: Lemma A.1 items 1, 2, 5, and 6 are cited from [5], which was forthcoming at the time, and the proof of Lemma A.1(4) invokes the algebraic completeness theorem from [11] to establish the meta-rule that ⊤⊢□φ iff ⊤⊢φ. That is a load-bearing dependency. If the algebraic completeness theorem failed, or if the one-point extension C′ in that proof were not a normal lattice expansion, the compatibility of R□ in Lemma A.4 would break and Theorem A.8 would not follow. I do not think it fails — [11] is published and the extension looks fine — but the paper should state the full hypotheses and make the external citations precise. There are also typos in Lemma A.4, including an i′/f′ mix-up and an "iA" slip; these are minor and fixable. The heavy self-citation is not itself a flaw, but it does mean the main theorem is only as solid as the companion papers it depends on.

This paper is for people working on non-distributive modal logic, formal concept analysis, and many-valued semantics. It will not change the field, but it does give a useful completeness theorem and a clean conceptual bridge to FCA. A serious referee should engage with it; the result deserves to be in the literature after the dependencies are tightened and the typos are fixed.

Recommendation: send to peer review, conditional on the authors making the appendix self-contained or precisely cross-referencing the unpublished companions, and cleaning up Lemma A.4.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a many-valued (A-valued) semantics for basic normal lattice-based modal logic, built on enriched formal A-contexts in the style of Formal Concept Analysis. After setting up A-valued formal contexts, A-concepts, complex algebras, and conceptual A-models, the paper proves (Theorem A.8) that the basic normal L-logic is sound and complete with respect to the class of polarity-based A-frames. Section 3 discusses an application to multi-market competition, representing firms, product markets, strategic similarity, and market connectedness inside the framework. The appendix contains the canonical model construction: the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra, A-filters and A-ideals, the canonical polarity-based A-frame, the truth lemma, and the final completeness argument.

Significance. If the completeness theorem can be established, this is a worthwhile contribution: it extends the established polarity-based semantics for non-distributive modal logic to a genuine many-valued setting and connects it with a substantive application domain. The framework is natural, the conceptual discussion of strategic similarity and market connection is thoughtful, and the paper is explicit that the appendix adapts [5] and [12]. The central claim, however, is not established by the manuscript as written: the proof of Lemma A.4 contains a load-bearing construction that does not produce a proper A-filter, and the appendix relies on an unstated external completeness theorem at a key point. The paper therefore needs substantial revision before the completeness result can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A, proof of Lemma A.1(4)] The proof of the meta-rule '⊤ ⊢ □ϕ iff ⊤ ⊢ ϕ' invokes the completeness of L with respect to the class of all normal lattice expansions from [11] without stating the theorem or its hypotheses. This is load-bearing: Lemma A.1(4) is used to show that i^{-□} is a proper A-ideal, which is in turn needed for the I-compatibility of R□ in Lemma A.4 and hence for Theorem A.8. Moreover, the one-point extension C' is described only for the □-operation; the signature also contains ◇, so the paper should either specify how all operations are extended or state the precise theorem from [11] that makes the argument valid. Please state the cited result, verify its hypotheses, and complete the verification that C' is a normal lattice expansion of the full signature.
[Appendix A, Lemma A.4, proof of R□ compatibility] The construction of the A-filter f' used for R□^{(1)} does not work as written. The text says 'Let f′ : Fm → A be defined by the assignment i′(ϕ) = {0 if ϕ⊢⊥, i(□ϕ) otherwise}'; if this is read as the definition of f′, then f′(⊤)=i(□⊤)=i(⊤)=0, contradicting the requirement f′(⊤)=1 for an A-filter. If the intended definition was f′(ϕ)=f(□ϕ), then f′ is indeed an A-filter but need not be proper, since f(□⊥) need not be 0 for a proper A-filter f; properness is required for membership in FA(Fm). In either reading, the inequality (∗∗) and the resulting I-compatibility verification for R□ are not justified. Since this is the only verification of I-compatibility for R□^{(1)}, Theorem A.8 is not established by the present proof.
[Appendix A, proof of Lemma A.1(3)] The displayed proof that i^{-□} is ∨-reversing contains an incorrect step. The text replaces i(c1) ∧ i(c2) by i(c1 ∧ c2), but for an A-ideal the correct identity is i(c1) ∧ i(c2) = i(c1 ∨ c2); moreover the inequality marked (∗∗) uses the variable f where i is intended. As printed, the inequality is false because c1 ∧ c2 ≤ c1 ∨ c2 and i is order-reversing. The direction can be repaired by using c = c1 ∨ c2 together with a ≤ □c1 ≤ □(c1 ∨ c2) and b ≤ □c2 ≤ □(c1 ∨ c2), but the lemma as printed is not proved.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix A, Lemma A.4] There are several notation errors in this lemma: 'R□^{(1)}[{β/f}](α,w)' should be 'R□^{(1)}[{β/f}](i)'; 'for any f ∈ IA(Fm)' should be 'for any f ∈ FA(Fm)' in the paragraph on R□^{(1)}; the definition of f′ should use f′ rather than i′; and in the final displayed inequality 'R◇' should be 'R□'.
[Theorem A.8] In the proof of Theorem A.8, 'In order to show that M |= ϕ⊢ψ' should read 'In order to show that M ⊭ ϕ⊢ψ', since the subsequent argument exhibits a filter on which [ϕ] has value 1 and [ψ] has value 0.
[Theorem A.8] The theorem states soundness and completeness, but the proof only addresses completeness. Soundness is not difficult and should follow from Lemma 2.1 and the truth definitions, but it should be stated explicitly rather than left implicit.
[Appendix A] The appendix cites Lemmas A.1(1), (2), (5), and (6) from [5], which is listed as forthcoming, and the construction adapts [5, Appendix A] and [12, Appendix B], the latter listed as submitted. Since these cited items are not all publicly available, the authors should either reproduce the needed statements and proofs or clearly indicate where the reader can verify them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the canonical-model proof of Theorem A.8 is independent; prior results by the authors supply auxiliary lemmas, not the target theorem.

full rationale

The completeness proof in Appendix A is a genuine canonical-model construction. The only result imported from the authors' earlier work that is load-bearing is the algebraic completeness of L with respect to all normal lattice expansions, cited from [11] in Lemma A.1(4) to justify the meta-rule '⊤ ⊢ □ϕ iff ⊤ ⊢ ϕ.' This is not the target theorem: target completeness is with respect to many-valued polarity-based A-frames, while [11] is an independent, published algebraic completeness theorem. The canonical frame construction then proves the target directly, so the target result is not assumed. The other cited items in Lemma A.1, attributed to [5], are auxiliary syntactic meta-rules used to verify I-compatibility of the canonical relations; omitting their proofs creates a proof-dependency or verifiability concern, but not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no known result is repackaged under new coordinates, and no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to force a choice. No equation in the paper reduces to another equation merely by construction. Thus there is no significant circularity; the low score reflects only the presence of self-citations in the proof chain, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a mathematics preprint with no fitted data parameters. The central completeness proof rests on the specified lattice-theoretic assumptions, on the authors' own algebraic completeness theorem, and on prior unpublished or forthcoming companion papers. No new physical or empirical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption A is a complete, frame-distributive and dually frame-distributive, commutative and associative residuated lattice with 1 → α = α for every α ∈ A.
All many-valued constructions in Section 2.2 presuppose this structure on the truth-value algebra; it is used in the A-Galois connection, the definition of A-subsethood, and in distributivity steps in Lemma A.2.
standard math The basic normal lattice-based modal logic L is complete with respect to the class of all normal lattice expansions.
Invoked in the proof of Lemma A.1(4) to derive the equivalence '⊤ ⊢ □ϕ iff ⊤ ⊢ ϕ' in the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra; cited to the authors' own [11].
standard math Every formal A-context induces an A-Galois connection (Belohlavek's Lemma 5 in [1]).
Background theorem from fuzzy order theory that justifies the concept lattice construction used throughout.
ad hoc to paper The completeness proofs of [5, Appendix A] and [12, Appendix B] are valid and transfer to the many-valued enriched formal context setting.
The appendix is described as an adaptation of these two papers, so the central claim depends on results that are not fully reproduced here and are not yet published.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The logic of vague categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USUXVRD6

@misc{pith2026190804816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The logic of vague categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USUXVRD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04816}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce a complete many-valued semantics for basic normal lattice-based modal logic. This relational semantics is grounded on many-valued formal contexts from Formal Concept Analysis. We discuss an interpretation and possible applications of this logical framework for categorization theory to the formal analysis of multi-market competition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Fuzzy Lattice-based Description Logic
cs.LO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

LE-FALC is a fuzzy lattice-based description logic with a sound and complete polynomial-time tableaux algorithm for ABox consistency, and an exponential-time procedure for acyclic TBoxes via unraveling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Craig, A. Palmigiano, and N.M. Wijnberg. Modelling competing theories. In Proc. EUSFLAT 2019 , Atlantis Studies in Uncertainty Modelling, page forthcoming, 2019

work page 2019
[11]

Conradie and A

W . Conradie and A. Palmigiano. Algorithmic correspond ence and canonicity for non-distributive logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 170(9):923–974. DOI: 10.1016/j.apal.2019.04.003, 2019

doi:10.1016/j.apal.2019.04.003 2019
[12]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Palmigiano, C. Robinson, A. Tzimoulis, and N.M. Wijnberg. Modelling socio-political competition. Submitted, 2019

work page 2019
[1]

Bˆ elohl´ avek

R. Bˆ elohl´ avek. Fuzzy galois connections. Mathematical Logic Quarterly , 45(4):497–504, 1999

work page 1999
[2]

Multimarket c ontact and collu- sive behavior

B Douglas Bernheim and Michael D Whinston. Multimarket c ontact and collu- sive behavior. The RAND Journal of Economics , pages 1–26, 1990

work page 1990
[3]

On the minimum many-valued modal logic over a ﬁnite residuated lat tice

F´ elix Bou, Francesc Esteva, Llu´ ıs Godo, and Ricardo Oscar Rodr´ ıguez. On the minimum many-valued modal logic over a ﬁnite residuated lat tice. Journal of Logic and Computation , 21(5):739–790, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Conradie and A

W . Conradie and A. Craig. Relational semantics via TiRS g raphs. Proc. TACL 2015, page long abstract, 2015

2015
[6]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Craig, A. Palmigiano, and N.M Wijnberg. M odelling infor- mational entropy. In Proc. W oLLIC 2019, volume 11541 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 140–160. Springer, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 32 references

[7]

Conradie, S

W . Conradie, S. Frittella, K. Manoorkar, S. Nazari, A. Pa lmigiano, A. Tzi- moulis, and N.M. Wijnberg. Rough concepts. Submitted, ArXiv preprint: arXiv:1907.00359, 2019

1907 arXiv
[8]

Conradie, S

W . Conradie, S. Frittella, A. Palmigiano, M. Piazzai, A. Tzimoulis, and N.M. Wijnberg. Categories: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Lov e Two Sorts. In Proc. W oLLIC 2016, volume 9803 of LNCS, pages 145–164, 2016. 10

2016
[9]

Conradie, S

W . Conradie, S. Frittella, A. Palmigiano, M. Piazzai, A. Tzimoulis, and N.M. Wijnberg. Toward an epistemic-logical theory of categoriz ation. In Proc. TARK 2017, volume 251 of EPTCS, pages 167–186, 2017

2017
[10]

Conradie and A

W . Conradie and A. Palmigiano. Constructive canonicit y of inductive inequali- ties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08341 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[13]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Palmigiano, and A. Tzimoulis. Goldblat t-Thomason for LE- logics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08225 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[14]

Conglomerate bigness as a source of po wer

Corwin D Edwards. Conglomerate bigness as a source of po wer. In Business concentration and price policy, pages 331–359. Princeton University Press, 1955

1955
[15]

Residuated frames w ith applications to decid- ability

Nikolaos Galatos and Peter Jipsen. Residuated frames w ith applications to decid- ability. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 365(3):1219–1249, 2013

2013
[16]

Ganter and R

B. Ganter and R. Wille. F ormal concept analysis: mathematical foundations . Springer, 2012

2012
[17]

Generalized Kripke frames

Mai Gehrke. Generalized Kripke frames. Studia Logica, 84(2):241–275, 2006

2006
[18]

Bounded lattice expansion s

Mai Gehrke and John Harding. Bounded lattice expansion s. Journal of Algebra, 238(1):345–371, 2001

2001
[19]

Hypercompetition in a m ultimarket envi- ronment: The role of strategic similarity and multimarket c ontact in competitive de-escalation

Javier Gimeno and Carolyn Y Woo. Hypercompetition in a m ultimarket envi- ronment: The role of strategic similarity and multimarket c ontact in competitive de-escalation. Organization science, 7(3):322–341, 1996

1996
[20]

Greco, P

G. Greco, P . Jipsen, F. Liang, A. Palmigiano, and A. Tzim oulis. Algebraic proof theory for LE-logics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04642 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[21]

Greco, P

G. Greco, P . Jipsen, K. Manoorkar, A. Palmigiano, and A. Tzimoulis. Logics for rough concept analysis. In Proc. ICLA 2019 , volume 11600 of LNCS, pages 144–159, 2019

2019
[22]

Correspondence theory in many-valued modal logics

Cecelia le Roux. Correspondence theory in many-valued modal logics. 2016

2016
[23]

Z. Pawlak. Rough set theory and its applications to data analysis. Cybernetics & Systems, 29(7):661–688, 1998

1998
[24]

N. M. Wijnberg. Classiﬁcation systems and selection sy stems: The risks of rad- ical innovation and category spanning. Scandinavian Journal of Management , 27(3):297–306, 2011. 11 A Completeness This section is an adaptation of the completeness result of [ 5, Appendix A] and [...

2011
[25]

If f : Fm → A is a proper A-ﬁlter , then so is f −/Diamond
[26]

If i : L → A is an A-ideal, then so is i −□
[27]

If i : Fm → A is a proper A-ideal, then so is i −□
[28]

If ϕ,ψ∈ L, then ⊤ ⊢ϕ∨ψimplies that ⊤ ⊢ϕor ⊤ ⊢ψ
[29]

If ϕ,ψ∈ L, thenϕ⊬⊥ andψ⊬⊥ implies thatϕ∧ψ⊬⊥. Proof. We only prove items 3 and 4, as the other items were proven in [5, Lemma A.1]. For 3, we ﬁrst show that i−□is ⊥-reversing: i−□(⊥) = ⋁{i(b) | ⊥ ≤ □b} = ⋁{i(b) | b ∈ L} = i(⊥) = 1 We now show that i−□is ∨-reversing. For all a, ...
[30]

⋁ b∈L( f −/Diamond(b) ⊗ i(b)) = ⋁ a∈L( f (a) ⊗ i(/Diamonda))
[31]

⋁ b∈L( f (b) ⊗ i−□(b)) = ⋁ a∈L( f (□a) ⊗ i(a)). Proof. For the right-to-left inequality of (1) we use the fact that f (a) ≤ f −/Diamond(/Diamonda) implies that f (a) ⊗ i(/Diamonda) ≤ f −/Diamond(/Diamonda) ⊗ i(/Diamonda) for every a ∈ L, which gives ⋁ a∈L( f (a) ⊗ i(/Diamonda)...
[32]

Hence, (8) can be rewritten as follows: iψ(ψ) → f (□ψ) ≤ f (□ψ), which is a tautology since i(ψ) = 1

= f (□ψ). Hence, (8) can be rewritten as follows: iψ(ψ) → f (□ψ) ≤ f (□ψ), which is a tautology since i(ψ) = 1. Next, we want to show that ( [□ψ] )(i) = i(□ψ). By deﬁnition, ( [□ψ] )(i) = [ [□ψ] ]↑(i) = ⋀ f ∈FA(Fm)[[ [□ψ] ](f ) → I( f, i)] = ⋀ i∈FA(Fm)[ f (□ψ) → I( f, i)]. To ...

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Craig, A. Palmigiano, and N.M. Wijnberg. Modelling competing theories. In Proc. EUSFLAT 2019 , Atlantis Studies in Uncertainty Modelling, page forthcoming, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [11]

Conradie and A

W . Conradie and A. Palmigiano. Algorithmic correspond ence and canonicity for non-distributive logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 170(9):923–974. DOI: 10.1016/j.apal.2019.04.003, 2019

doi:10.1016/j.apal.2019.04.003 2019

[3] [12]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Palmigiano, C. Robinson, A. Tzimoulis, and N.M. Wijnberg. Modelling socio-political competition. Submitted, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [1]

Bˆ elohl´ avek

R. Bˆ elohl´ avek. Fuzzy galois connections. Mathematical Logic Quarterly , 45(4):497–504, 1999

work page 1999

[5] [2]

Multimarket c ontact and collu- sive behavior

B Douglas Bernheim and Michael D Whinston. Multimarket c ontact and collu- sive behavior. The RAND Journal of Economics , pages 1–26, 1990

work page 1990

[6] [3]

On the minimum many-valued modal logic over a ﬁnite residuated lat tice

F´ elix Bou, Francesc Esteva, Llu´ ıs Godo, and Ricardo Oscar Rodr´ ıguez. On the minimum many-valued modal logic over a ﬁnite residuated lat tice. Journal of Logic and Computation , 21(5):739–790, 2011

work page 2011

[7] [4]

Conradie and A

W . Conradie and A. Craig. Relational semantics via TiRS g raphs. Proc. TACL 2015, page long abstract, 2015

2015

[8] [6]

Conradie, A

W . Conradie, A. Craig, A. Palmigiano, and N.M Wijnberg. M odelling infor- mational entropy. In Proc. W oLLIC 2019, volume 11541 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 140–160. Springer, 2019

work page 2019