Russell Standish wrote:
If treasures were not hidden in the mud, they would not be treasures :-)
I suspect your words came out wrong here - do you mean A treasure
hidden by mud is still a treasure? Which, of course I agree with.
Thanks for correcting my words.
I would be ecstatic if
Marchal wrote:
Hi Russell,
I am glad you borrowed Booloses from a library and that you spent a
while poring over my thesis.
I want just made precise that I have never try to modelise knowledge
by Bew(|p|).
This is, actually, a rather sensible point. Most philosopher agree
that
Russell Standish wrote:
Ah! You mean the problem of consciousness (or more exactly, the problem
of having a theory of conscsiousness). Yes - I'm well aware of this
problem, and unlike some, I don't believe it is a non-problem.
OK. I prefer to call it the mind-body problem. That reminds us that
Just as an example, he says most philosophers
would agree that
[]A-A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
is clearly a
different meaning of the word to know that we use
here in
Australia.
Provided that A is not a simple artificial construct, meaning: it is a
complicity
Russell Standish wrote:
I still believe my general remarks apply to your why Occam's razor.
(I reprint it and I will reread it once I have more time).
You put to much for me in the hypothesis. Like all physicists you seem
not to be aware of the mind body problem.
You are right! What is the
Ah! You mean the problem of consciousness (or more exactly, the problem
of having a theory of conscsiousness). Yes - I'm well aware of this
problem, and unlike some, I don't believe it is a non-problem.
In Occam's razor, I don't just ignore this problem, I sweep it under
the rug. At some stage I
Russell Standish wrote (to George):
I don't think Bruno's conclusion is weird. I come to essentially the
same conclusion in Occam, without the need for formalising
Knowledge, nor the need to use Modal logic.
The fact that you come to the same conclusion does not mean these
conclusions are not
Just as an example, he says most philosophers
would agree that
[]A-A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
is clearly a
different meaning of the word to know that we use
here in
Australia.
I get the impression folks here assume that when one
person knows something, that only
Hi Russell,
I spent a while poring over Bruno's thesis, and borrowed
Boolos from a local university library to udnerstand more what it was
about. I didn't go into too great a length into the results and
structure of Modal logic, although I gained an appreciation, and an
understanding of
Hi Russell,
I spent a while poring over Bruno's thesis, and borrowed
Boolos from a local university library to udnerstand more what it was
about. I didn't go into too great a length into the results and
structure of Modal logic, although I gained an appreciation, and an
understanding of
George Levy wrote:
Marchal wrote:
And we have as results (including the exercices!):
Any frame (W,R) respects K
A frame (W,R) respects T iff R is reflexive
A frame (W,R) respects 4 iff R is transitive
A frame (W,R) respects 5 iff R is euclidian
(where R is Euclidian means that if xRy
George Levy wrote:
Marchal wrote:
And we have as results (including the exercices!):
Any frame (W,R) respects K
A frame (W,R) respects T iff R is reflexive
A frame (W,R) respects 4 iff R is transitive
A frame (W,R) respects 5 iff R is euclidian
(where R is Euclidian means that if xRy
Dear Russell:
At 5/2/01, you wrote:
Incidently, I didn't mean to imply that this sort of modeling of
Knowlegde was inappropriate, only that there was no discussion as to
why one would want to model it in this particular way. Its really the
same as when Hal Ruhl (and I admit I'm putting words in
Hi Russell,
I spent a while poring over Bruno's thesis, and borrowed
Boolos from a local university library to udnerstand more what it was
about. I didn't go into too great a length into the results and
structure of Modal logic, although I gained an appreciation, and an
understanding of
Hi Marchal,
This is a reply to your last two posts. I hope other everythingers beside
myself are attempting to follow this adventure in logic. It appears to be
really worth the effort. Please feel free to contribute to this exchange.
Marchal wrote:
And we have as results (including the
15 matches
Mail list logo
