Hi Marchal,
This is a reply to your last two posts. I hope other everythingers beside
myself are attempting to follow this adventure in logic. It appears to be
really worth the effort. Please feel free to contribute to this exchange.

##
Advertising

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.
> Actually we will need also
>
> -Predicate logic, and arithmetics
> -weak logics (intuitionist logic, quantum logic)
> -Algebraic semantics of weak logics
> -Kripke semantics of weak logics
>
I guess we have to visit the whole Louvre to get to the Mona Lisa :-). Any
short cut?
> Then the interview itself will begin. We can follow the historical
> progress of that interview:
>
> -Goedel's theorem;
> -Loeb's theorem; (just this one makes the travel worth!)
> -Solovay's theorem;
> -Muravitski & Kusnetsov, Boolos, Goldblatt theorems;
> -Other theorems by Goldblatt
> -Still Other theorems by Goldblatt.
> -Visser's theorem;
>
> It is the theorem by Solovay which will make clear the relation
> between provability logic and some modal logics.
> Boolos, Goldblatt, Visser has found result which will make part
> of our the translation of the UDA argument almost transparent.
Thank you for outlining a itinirary for our journey into logic.... I
thought our destination was much closer.. Does it have to be that
complicated? Thanks for the effort.
George