Chris, (01)
Dunn was just using the word "law" as a convenient synonym for
"necessary truth". (02)
CM> 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? (03)
In Kripke models, the necessary truths in any world w are those
sentences that are true in every world accessible from w. The
mapping from a K-model to a D-model would put all those sentences
into the set L of the laws of w. (04)
CM> ... (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. (05)
I have the original book somewhere in my house. Unfortunately, I
did not put it back on the shelf next to several other yellow books
from North-Holland Press. So I can't find the original quotation. (06)
But I can't recall anything Dunn said that would distinguish a law
of w from a statement that is necessarily true in w. (Dunn had
read my papers, he thanked me for promoting his work, he invited
me to give a talk at Indiana U., and he did not say that my
interpretation was inconsistent with what he had said.) (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|