Le 13-janv.-06, à 19:13, Benjamin Udell wrote in part:
I'm wondering whether we mean the same thing by "truth preservation." I mean the validity of such arguments as exemplified (in trivial forms) by "p, ergo p" and "pq, ergo p" or whatever argument such that the conclusion is "contained" in the premisses. Or maybe I've been using the word "deductive" in too broad a sense?
Actually it is the contrary. What you describe is classical truth preservation, which occurs with the classical deductive rules (so that they are sound and complete). In general "truth preservation" is a semantics dependant concept, where semantics can sometimes be given by some mathematical structures. I don't want to be too technical at this point.
(Mathematically a semantics is a subspaces' classifier)
How did you guess that I currently have patience and time on my hands? :-)
Thanks for witnessing the interest. I wish only I would have more time for now. I have the patience I think :-)
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
