On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Thanks for the info. It is very interesting and It helps in many
ways.
You are welcome.
The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:57, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds
that p is true in
On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that
p is true in at least one world.
You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if.
OK?
OK. I think I
On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is
true in at least one world.
You need just use
On 24 Jan 2014, at 21:52, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 23:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
(Later, we will stop asking that all worlds (in the sense given)
belongs in the
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is
true in at least one world.
You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if.
OK?
OK. I think I see. p becomes if p is true rather than p
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[]p - p
Here, there is no more truth table available, and so you have to
think. The Leibniz semantic (the only semantic we have defined)
provides all the information to solve the
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:20, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 01:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
Everybody loves my baby. Therefore my baby loves my baby. But my
baby loves nobody but me. Therefore - the only way this can be true
- is if Alicia
On 24 January 2014 23:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
(Later, we will stop asking that all worlds (in the sense given) belongs
in the multiverse. We can decide to suppress all
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:42, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 00:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
I'm going to take a punt and assume the order in which things are
ANDed together doesn't matter, in which case the above comes out as
equal
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:44, LizR wrote:
I think after looking at your next post that I have messed up []p -
p and therefore, no doubt, everything else. I need to do the truth
table business ... later!
No, you were 100% right. You confirms my feeling (when going in my bed
yesterday
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. A last little exercise in the same vein, for the night. (coming
from a book by Jeffrey):
Alicia was singing this:
Everybody loves my baby. My baby loves nobody but me.
Can we
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[]p - p
Here, there is no more truth table available, and so you have to think.
The Leibniz semantic (the only semantic we have defined) provides all the
information to solve the puzzle.
I read this as p is true in worlds
On 24 January 2014 01:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
Everybody loves my baby. Therefore my baby loves my baby. But my baby
loves nobody but me. Therefore - the only way this can be true - is if
Alicia *is* her baby. So the answer is yes!
On 22 Jan 2014, at 00:16, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh! You did not answer:
((COLD WET) - ICE) - ((COLD - ICE) V (WET - ICE))
So what? Afraid of the logician's trick? Or of the logician's
madness? Try this one if you are afraid to be
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, it is all good, Liz!
What about:
(p V q) - p
Using the same formula this is equivalent to(~(p V q) V p), which
for (0,1) is 0, hence not a law.
and
p - (p q)
And this is (~p V
Hi Liz,
May be I am to quick.
On 22 Jan 2014, at 12:58, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, it is all good, Liz!
What about:
(p V q) - p
Using the same formula this is equivalent to(~(p V q) V
I think after looking at your next post that I have messed up []p - p and
therefore, no doubt, everything else. I need to do the truth table business
... later!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 23 January 2014 08:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. A last little exercise in the same vein, for the night. (coming from a
book by Jeffrey):
Alicia was singing this:
Everybody loves my baby. My baby loves nobody but me.
Can we deduce from this that everybody loves
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:47, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If you remember Cantor, you see that if we take all variables into
account, the multiverse is already a continuum. OK? A world is
defined by a infinite sequence like true, false, false,
Thanks for the info. It is very interesting and It helps in many ways.
The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of knowledge can only be done by replaying the historical process that
produces the
On 1/21/2014 2:14 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Thanks for the info. It is very interesting and It helps in many ways.
The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of knowledge can only be done by
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh! You did not answer:
((COLD WET) - ICE) - ((COLD - ICE) V (WET - ICE))
So what? Afraid of the logician's trick? Or of the logician's madness? Try
this one if you are afraid to be influenced by your intuition aboutCOLD,
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, it is all good, Liz!
What about:
(p V q) - p
Using the same formula this is equivalent to(~(p V q) V p), which for (0,1)
is 0, hence not a law.
and
p - (p q)
And this is (~p V (p q)) which is 0 for (1,0), hence
Actually, you will have to remind me what [] and mean before I go any
further.
--
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
Hi Liz, and others,
I explain the classical modal logic.
It extends classical propositional logic (CPL), that we have already
encounter.
I will recall it first, and present it in a way which will suit well
the modal extensions of CPL.
One big advantage of CPL on all other propositional
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If you remember Cantor, you see that if we take all variables into
account, the multiverse is already a continuum. OK? A world is defined by a
infinite sequence like true, false, false, true, true, true, ...
corresponding to p,
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Are the following laws? I don't put the last outer parenthesis for reason
of readability.
p - p
This is a law because p - q is equivalent to (~p V q) and (p V ~p) must be
(true OR false), or (false OR true) which are both
28 matches
Mail list logo
