Dear Bruno,
Thank you for your reply.
You wrote that 'B is valid in the frames where result
of experience can be verified or repeated'. Can you
be more explicit because I cannot see the relation
with the fact that the accessibility relation is
reflexive and symmetric (a proximity relation).
I
The idea is to identify an accessible world with possible results of
experiments. Symmetry then entails that if you do an experiment which
gives some result, you can repeat the experience and get those results
again. You can come back in the world you leave. It is an intuitive and
Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
logic B (KTB) can be used to capture a notion of vagueness, and, by a
theorem of Goldblatt, it can be used to formalise classicaly a
minimal
form of von Neuman quantum logic in a manner similar to the way the
modal logic S4, or S4Grz, capture
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To tackle the math of that physical bord, I use the Godel Lob
Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL).
Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory?
or something that could be checked experimentally?
My main
goal is that I seem to need to show that such a fuzzy set theory, one
with a universal set, is ++consistent relative to ZFC++ or at
least
prove that that's not possible (ie, prove a generalization of
Russell's paradox).
It is proved in Paraconsistent Logic:
Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that
involve
logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of
syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic?
my guess is: just any theory using binary logic.
I was wondering if anyone has had experience of this journal, and
whether its publishing standards are as rigorous as they claim.
A good way to evaluate the seriousness of a journal is to check its
editorial board. It should consist of the big guys in the research
area covered by the journal.
7 matches
Mail list logo
