y:
>
> ((A -> B) <-> (-B -> -A))
> 1 1 1 1 01 1 01
> 1 0 0 1 10 0 01
> 0 1 1 1 01 1 10
> 0 1 0 1 10 1 10
>
> using the table for p <-> q
>
> A <-> B or if you prefer <->1 0 (like a multiplication table)
&
So far so good
Marchal wrote:
> rwas rwas wrote:
>
> >IF:
> > AB:C
> > 11 1
> > 10 0
> > 01 1
> > 00 1
> >
> >Can someone explain the "IF" table?
Ok. it could be defined that way but this allows weird results to be
obtained. It may be safer to define it as
IF:
AB:C
11 1
10
>IF:
> AB:C
> 11 1
> 10 0
> 01 1
> 00 1
>
>Can someone explain the "IF" table?
This is a very common question. To some degree, as Marchal suggests,
you can think of it as a definition.
But to motivate it, suppose Sally asks her father if he will take her to
the zoo. He tells her, "if you
inference of
necessitation:
A
---
[]A
But A->[]A is not valid in Leibniz semantics. A true in
a world does not entails A true in all worlds! So by the
soundness/completeness result for S5 with respect to
Leibniz semantics S5 does not prove A->[]A
I was'nt aware "if" was a diadic operator.
My boolean interpretation of what's been presented:
OR:
AB:C
00 0
01 1
10 1
11 1
IF:
AB:C
11 1
10 0
01 1
00 1
Can someone explain the "IF" table?
Robert W.
--- "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [E
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> A v B A -> B
> > >> 1 1 1 1 1 1
> > >> 1 1 0 1 0 0
> > >> 0 1 1 0 1 1
> > >> 0 0 0 0 1 0
>
> Just to help you guys out, the notation us
> >> A v B A -> B
> >> 1 1 1 1 1 1
> >> 1 1 0 1 0 0
> >> 0 1 1 0 1 1
> >> 0 0 0 0 1 0
Just to help you guys out, the notation used here puts the 'result'
operation in the middle column.
<-> B) is an abbreviation of (A->B) & (B->A).
>> Exercices. Show that the following sentences are valid:
>>
>> p -> <>p
>> []p -> [][]p
>> p -> []<>p
>> <>p -> []<>p
>> [](p->q) -> ([]p -> []q)
>&
.. However it would help if together with the string of
symbols there was an English translation.
> Here is Leibniz semantics for modal
> logic. It is a preamble.
> Don't hesitate to tell me if it is too difficult
> or too easy, or too technical ...
> I suppose you know a little bit o
Hi George,
I make the foolish promise to give you my
proof. Here is Leibniz semantics for modal
logic. It is a preamble.
Don't hesitate to tell me if it is too difficult
or too easy, or too technical ...
I suppose you know a little bit of classical logic.
If you don't, just tell me. A
10 matches
Mail list logo
