Thanks, Bruno, your brief added last par is of great help. I would NEVER mix provability and probability, I am not Spanish (b=v?) and think in semantical rather than formal meanings. I wish I knew what is a "modal logic" (G and G*) and am a bit perplexed of your (??) logic defining G* as beeing 'something or not'. (Like: "F" is =,<, or >, of "B")- Then again "true" may not exist, indeed. (1st pers?) Similarly it does not help me, if I get a lot of other 'names' for something I don't know what it is to begin with. I like WORDS. (I also like word-puzzles, but only solvable ones in my domains). * I glanced over the Stanford blurb and found exciting titles. When clicked, they overpoured me with equational lettering and I had no idea about their meaning. Even if I had a vocabulary of those letters, it is practically (humanly) impossible to "read" a text and follow those equations by looking up every letter for the meaning and content (with, of course clicking after all the connotations galore). Besides it is full of signs I cannot even read out and have nothing similar on my keyboard (maybe they are in some hidden modes as are the French accents). *** As a comparison: here is a description of a statement from my old profession about something I did: "when mixing the DVB and St in a DBP catalysed 1:3 stoichiometry it exotherms and has to be temp-controled. At reaction-startup I added the DEB and then dispersed the mix in an aqueous medium with PVA stabilizer. The beads were then WV-boiled off and filtered. They showed a controllable macroporous structure with large sp. surface internally for adsorptive sites. Then came the transform by polymeranalogous reactions to introduce polar or ionic sites."
And so on. It made perfect sense in my profession. (Never mind) No modal or out of modal logic, no 'ABC... with signs' equations. *** How does the "provability" (no b) jibe with Poppers scientific 'unprovability'? Is falsifiability = provability? Bruno, I like what you SAY, I like YOUR logic, not somebody else's. I don't want to 'give up' on you because of a system so strange to me. I am 'fishing' for word-hooks in your writings. In 1940 I took philosophy (to major chemistry) and sociology. I should have taken logic instead of the Br. of Brandenstein. Of course it would have been of little use now, 65 years later. With friendship John --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > > To search informations on the net on G and G*, it is > easier to search > on "logic of provability". > > G is also called KW, KW4, L, GL, PRL in other papers > or book. > G* is also called G', PRL^omega, GLS > > The Stanford entry is rather good: > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ > > In brief words G is a modal logic which describes > what a classical > theory or machine can prove about its own > provability abilities. And G* > is a modal logic which describes what is true > (provable or not by the > machine) about its own provability abilities. > > Don't confuse "provability" with "probability". > Careful when typing > because the "b" and the "v" are close on the > keyboard! > > Bruno > > > Le 29-déc.-05, à 00:48, John M a écrit : > > > Bruno, could you include some BRIEF words for the > > profanum vulgus about that ominous "G - G*" magic > as > > well? I searched Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, but > could > > not find any reasonable hint. > > You and other savants on the list apply this > magic > > many times always. Am I the only one who missed > that > > in grammar school? > > > > John > >> > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > >