Brent Meeker wrote:

>  > However, in defense of Bruno, he uses [] as "provable" and
>  > <> as "consistent", which seem pretty well defined within a
>  > given axiomatic system. It is when he equates "provable"
>  > with "necessary in all possible worlds" that I think I hear
>  > a train.


I only equate "p provable by a consistent machine M"  with
"p true in all accessible (by M)  world/states-relative-to-M (if
any)"


Bruno

Reply via email to