<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<item>
  <id>06039193</id>
  <dt>j</dt>
  <an>06039193</an>
  <augroup>
    <au>Kurz, Alexander</au>
    <au>Leal, Raul</au>
  </augroup>
  <ti>Modalities in the Stone age: a comparison of coalgebraic logics.</ti>
  <so>Theor. Comput. Sci. 430, 88-116 (2012).</so>
  <py>2012</py>
  <pu>Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam</pu>
  <lagroup>
    <la>EN</la>
  </lagroup>
  <ccgroup>
  </ccgroup>
  <utgroup>
    <ut>coalgebra</ut>
    <ut>coalgebraic logic</ut>
    <ut>Stone duality</ut>
    <ut>predicate liftings</ut>
    <ut>Moss-modality</ut>
    <ut>nabla-modality</ut>
  </utgroup>
  <cigroup>
  </cigroup>
  <ligroup>
    <li>doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2012.03.027</li>
  </ligroup>
  <abgroup>
    <ab>Summary: Coalgebra develops a general theory of transition systems, parametric in a functor $T$; the functor $T$ specifies the possible one-step behaviours of the system. A fundamental question in this area is how to obtain, for an arbitrary functor $T$, a logic for $T$-coalgebras. We compare two existing proposals, Moss's coalgebraic logic and the logic of all predicate liftings, by providing one-step translations between them, extending the results in [{\it R. A. Leal}, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203, No. 5, 195--220 (2008)] by making systematic use of Stone duality. Our main contribution then is a novel coalgebraic logic, which can be seen as an equational axiomatisation of Moss's logic. The three logics are equivalent for a natural but restricted class of functors. We give examples showing that the logics differ in general. Finally, we argue that the quest for a generic logic for $T$-coalgebras is still open in the general case.</ab>
    <rv></rv>
  </abgroup>
</item>