Abstract Propositional inquisitive logic is the limit of its n -bounded approximations. In the predicate setting, however, this does not hold anymore, as discovered by Ciardelli and Grilletti [11], who also found complete axiomatizations of n -bounded inquisitive logics $$\textsf{InqBQ}_{n}$$ InqBQ n , for every fixed n . We introduce cut-free labelled sequent calculi for these logics. We illustrate the intricacies of schematic validity in such systems by showing that the well-known Casari formula is atomically valid in (a weak sublogic of) predicate inquisitive logic $$\textsf{InqBQ}$$ InqBQ , fails to be schematically valid in it, and yet is schematically valid under the finite boundedness assumption. The derivations in our calculi, however, are guaranteed to be schematically valid whenever a single specific rule is not used.

Heyting-Lewis Logic is the extension of intuitionistic propositional logic with a strict implication connective that satisfies the constructive counterparts of axioms for strict implication provable in classical modal logics. Variants of this logic are surprisingly widespread: they appear as Curry-Howard correspondents of (simple type theory extended with) Haskell-style arrows, in preservativity logic of Heyting arithmetic, in the proof theory of guarded (co)recursion, and in the generalization of intuitionistic epistemic logic.Heyting-Lewis Logic can be interpreted in intuitionistic Kripke frames extended with a binary relation to account for strict implication. We use this semantics to define descriptive frames (generalisations of Esakia spaces), and establish a categorical duality between the algebraic interpretation and the frame semantics. We then adapt a transformation by Wolter and Zakharyaschev to translate Heyting-Lewis Logic to classical modal logic with two unary operators. This allows us to prove a Blok-Esakia theorem that we then use to obtain both known and new canonicity and correspondence theorems, and the finite model property and decidability for a large family of Heyting-Lewis logics.

Sandboxing is a common technique that allows low-level, untrusted components to safely interact with trusted code. However, previous work has only investigated the low-level memory isolation guarantees of sandboxing, leaving open the question of the end-to-end guarantees that sandboxing affords programmers. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that sandboxing enables reasoning about the known concept of robust safety , i.e. , safety of the trusted code even in the presence of arbitrary untrusted code. To do this, we first present an idealized operational semantics for a language that combines trusted code with untrusted code. Sandboxing is built into our semantics. Then, we prove that safety properties of the trusted code (as enforced through a rich type system) are upheld in the presence of arbitrary untrusted code, so long as all interactions with untrusted code occur at the “any” type (a type inhabited by all values). Finally, to alleviate the burden of having to interact with untrusted code at only the “any” type, we formalize and prove safe several wrappers , which automatically convert values between the “any” type and much richer types. All our results are mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.

We propose a generalization of first-order logic originating in a neglected work by C.C. Chang: a natural and generic correspondence language for any types of structures which can be recast as Set-coalgebras. We discuss axiomatization and completeness results for several natural classes of such logics. Moreover, we show that an entirely general completeness result is not possible. We study the expressive power of our language, both in comparison with coalgebraic hybrid logics and with existing first-order proposals for special classes of Set-coalgebras (apart from relational structures, also neighbourhood frames and topological spaces). Basic model-theoretic constructions and results, in particular ultraproducts, obtain for the two classes that allow completeness---and in some cases beyond that. Finally, we discuss a basic sequent system, for which we establish a syntactic cut-elimination result.

Motivated by the recent interest in models of guarded (co-)recursion, we study their equational properties. We formulate axioms for guarded fixpoint operators generalizing the axioms of iteration theories of Bloom and Ésik. Models of these axioms include both standard (e.g., cpo-based) models of it eration theories and models of guarded recursion such as complete metric spaces or the topos of trees studied by Birkedal et al. We show that the standard result on the satisfaction of all Conway axioms by a unique dagger operation generalizes to the guarded setting. We also introduce the notion of guarded trace operator on a category, and we prove that guarded trace and guarded fixpoint operators are in one-to-one correspondence. Our results are intended as first steps leading, hopefully, towards future description of classifying theories for guarded recursion.

Coalgebraic modal logic serves as a unifying framework to study a wide range of modal logics beyond the relational realm, including probabilistic and graded logics as well as conditional logics and logics based on neighbourhoods and games. Coalgebraic predicate logic (CPL), a generalization of a neighbourhood-based first-order logic introduced by Chang, has been identified as a natural first-order extension of coalgebraic modal logic, which in particular coincides with the standard first-order correspondence language when instantiated to Kripke-style relational modal operators. Here, we generalize to the CPL setting the classical van Benthem/Rosen theorem stating that both over arbitrary and over finite models, modal logic is precisely the bisimulation-invariant fragment of first-order logic. As instances of this generic result, we obtain corresponding characterizations for, e.g. conditional logic, neighbourhood logic (i.e. classical modal logic) and monotone modal logic.