On 9/21/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the "probability one". In
Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds
accessible from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world.
What does 'accessible' mean?
In modal logic semantic, it is a technical world for any element in set + a binary
relation on it.
A mapping of the set onto itself?
When applied to probability, the idea is to interpret the worlds by the realization of
some random experience, like throwing a coin would lead to two worlds accessible, one
with head, the other with tail. In that modal (tail or head) is a certainty as (tail
or head) is realized everywhere in the accessible worlds.
Then accessible means nomologically possible.
Accessible means only that some binary relation exists on a set. But in some concrete
model of a multi-world or multi-situation context, nomological possibility is not excluded.
Then I don't understand what other kinds of possibility are allowed? I don't see how
logical possibility could be considered an accessibility relation (at least not an
interesting one) because it would allow Rxy where y was anything except not-x.
But in the worlds of the UD there is no nomological constraint, so there's no
probability measure?
I am not sure why there is no nomological constraints in the UD. UD* is a highly
structured entity. You might elaborate on this.
A nomological constraint is one of physics. But physics is derivative from part of the
UD. The UD is structured only by arithmetic.
Brent
Bruno
Generally speaking a different world is defined as not accessible. If you can go
there, it's part of your same world.
Yes. OK. Sorry. Logician used the term world in a technical sense, and the worlds can
be anything, depending of which modal logic is used, for what purpose, etc. Kripke
semantic main used is in showing the independence of formula in different systems.
Bruno
Brent
This gives KD modal logics, with K: = [](p -> q)->([]p -> []q), and D: []p -> <>p.
Of course with "[]" for Gödel's beweisbar we don't have that D is a theorem, so we
ensure the D property by defining a new box, Bp = []p & <>t.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
