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
Dear Bruno:
Thank you for your patience and the excellent response.
>You should try to make your model part of established mathematics.
>Not for the glory, but for making it comprehensible.
That is what I am trying to do here, but since I have proven to have too
few current mathematical skills
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. Of course I do use logic
of the ordinary kind - I would be surprised if anyone could do away
with it altogether.
I would
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
Russell Standish wrote:
> However, my main problem with Bruno's work lay not in the technical
> details of Model logic, rather with the phrases of the ilk "We
> modelise knowledge by Bew(|p|)". I can appreciate its only a model,
> but why should I believe that model of knowing has any connectio
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
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
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>I appreciate the conversation so I will try to build a common reference so
>each additional step to my model can be built on that base and individually
>commented on. As requested these are definitions and terms relevant to my
>model not necessarily to established mathemati
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
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
Jacques Mallah wrote:
>>The key number of existence is 24.
>Do you mean 42?
No, I mean 24. As a Carroll fan I can appreciate 42, but that's
nothing compare to 24.
... and the 24th root of unity !
>What's a consistent computational extension?
Take an incomplete theory T. Suppose that -p is n
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>I appreciate the conversation so I will try to build a common reference so
>each additional step to my model can be built on that base and individually
>commented on. As requested these are definitions and terms relevant to my
>model not necessarily to established mathematic
12 matches
Mail list logo
