ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

 To: "[ontolog-forum] " Christopher Menzel Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:37:49 -0500 <2EC53003-0D63-43A0-8A3F-EAAE53D5BA6D@xxxxxxxx>
 ```On Sep 14, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > ... > I'm still waiting to hear how to map form Kripke to Dunn.    (01) I can't see how this can be done uniquely. Consider a very simple Kripke model with two worlds w1 and w2 where all atomic sentences true in w0 are true in w1 (but not vice versa -- assume also that at least one atomic sentence is true in w0) and both worlds are accessible to themselves and w1 is accessible to w0. The problem for turning this into a Dunn model is: when do we have a "mere" necessary truth and when do we have a law? Nothing seems to determine an answer to this question; it is simply stipulated in a given model. In particular, presumably, starting with a Kripke model M, we map each world w0 of M to a world u0 in a Dunn model whose facts are the truths of w0. Given this, it seems we can have one Dunn model where every fact of u0 is also a law of u0 and another model where u0 is a "lawless" world, i.e., where no fact of u0 is a law of u0. By Dunn's definition, this will make both worlds accessible to themselves and u1 accessible to u0. (In both cases, suppose also that every fact of u1 is a law of u1 -- this will prevent u0 from being assessible to u1, since some of u1's laws are not facts of u0.)    (02) I think that's right (though I'm working old memories of Dunn's semantics). If so, there is in general no unique mapping from a Kripke model to a Dunn model.    (03) -chris    (04) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Christopher Menzel <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality and semantics. [Was: Thing and Class], Pat Hayes