On 08 Oct 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2013 2:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
and Bp&p as "he knows p", so the person order of
the pronoun is also not relevant.
Yes, you can read that in that way, but you get only the 3-view of
Let us define [o]p by Bp & p
I am just pointing on the difference between B([o]p) and [o]([o]p).
Isn't B(Bp)=Bp so:
Bp -> B(Bp)
but B(Bp) does not necessarly imply Bp.
B(Bp & p) =? B(Bp & p) & (Bp & P)
Why would that be? [o](Bp & p) = B(Bp & p) & (Bp & p), but not B(Bp &
p), because B(Bp & p) does not imply Bp & p.
Bp =? Bp & p -> false
And so, this does not follow. (Keep in mind that Bp does not imply p,
from the machine's point of view). Think about Bf, if it implies f, we
would have that the machine would know that ~Bf, and knows that she is
consistent. She can't, if she is correct.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.