George Levy wrote:

>Marchal wrote:
>
>And we have as results (including the exercices!):
>
> > Any frame (W,R) respects K
> >A frame (W,R) respects T iff  R is reflexive
> >A frame (W,R) respects 4 iff R is transitive
> >A frame (W,R) respects 5 iff R is euclidian
> > (where R is Euclidian means that if xRy and xRz then yRz,  for x, y z
>in W).
> >A frame (W,R) respects D iff (W,R) is ideal
> >A frame (W,R) respects C iff (W,R) is realist.
>
>>We will talk on the semantics of L and Grz later.
>
>I do not think you defined euclidian.... There is obviously a connection
>to geometry but I dn't see it.

I just have defined it above.
R is Euclidian means that if xRy and xRz then yRz. 
A more concrete "euclidian" relation: W = the plane, i.e. the worlds are 
the
point of the plane. xRy = there is a straight line from x to y.
It is clearly euclidian because if there is a straight line from x to y, 
and
straight line from x to z, there is a straight line from y to z.

You can forget it because 5 is the only formula we will never meet.


>I guess we have to visit the whole Louvre to get to the Mona Lisa :-). 
>Any
>short cut?

Thanks for "Mona Lisa" !.
A short cut? Gosh! My machine interview *is* a terrible short cut :-)
Well I will try to follow a spirale, not giving you all
technical details (at once). 
Don't forget we are going from "the" psychology of the machines, *by* the
machines (and by their angels!) to their "most probable physical 
beliefs". 
So there is some need to be cautious with the vocabulary, to say the 
least. 


Bruno 


Reply via email to