On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:32, LizR wrote:
On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Liz, meanwhile you might try this one, which is a bit more easy than
the transitivity case:
Show that (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal.
(I remind you that R is ideal means that there is no cul-de-sac
world at all in (W,R)).
OK, I consult my diary and...
Ideal is as you say, yes! :-)
Excellent :)
So []A -> <>A means that A is some proposition universally true in
an illuminated, accessible multiverse, and this implies that A is
possible in that multiverse.
Not at all, and you know that, as you show below.
Hang on I must be missing something.
OK, I hang on.
That seems trivially obvious! Maybe you could point out what I've
misunderstood here...
It is not "misunderstanding", it is precipitation.
Let me try again.
OK.
[]p means that for any world alpha, p is true in all worlds
accessible from alpha.
That is much better.
(Doesn't it? Well if p is a proposition, which might be 'x is false'
then that seems reasonable).
You lost me here, but it looks like non relevant, even for you.
And <>p means that, ah, ~[]~p iirc. Which is to say it isn't true
that there is a world accessible from alpha in which ~p.
~[]~p means that it is not true that ~p is true in all worlds
accessible from alpha. That is, it means that there is a world beta,
with alpha R beta, such that beta verifies p. <>p true in alpha = I
can access, from alpha, to a world where p is true.
But isn't that implied by []p?
You fall again back in Leibniz. May be I should have started from
Kripke immediately.
Have you hang on, in your toilet, the fundamentals two Kripke
principles?
*************************************************************************************************
*
*
* []p is true in alpha = For all beta such that (alpha R beta) we
have beta verifies p. *
*
*
* <>p is true in alpha = There is a beta verifying p such that
(alpha R beta) *
*
*
*************************************************************************************************
I must have a definition wrong somewhere.
Correct.
Do you see that (W, R) is reflexive entails that (W,R) is ideal?
If all worlds access to themselves, no world can be a cul-de-sac
world, as a cul-de-sac world don't access to any world, including
themselves.
Reflexive is alpha R alpha for all alpha, so no cul de sac is
possible.
Correct.
More precision later, notably for the transitive case.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
