[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:15:24 -0400
Message-id: <4E40B45C.4030405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 8/8/2011 11:28 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
> MY point was that it is non-trivial to extend Dunn's semantics
> for modal propositional logic to a semantics for full modal predicate logic.    (01)

MY point is that it is identical to the way you extend
Kripke semantics to full modal predicate logic.    (02)

> You *first* have to provide a quantificational semantics to
> Dunn's propositional semantics.    (03)

It's there.  For each possible world, you select a traditional
Tarski-style model for the laws and facts of that world.    (04)

That gives you a Tarski-style quantificational semantics
of those laws and facts.    (05)

> The point is that adding a classical semantics for quantification
> to his truth-value semantics is non-trivial in a way that it is
> not for Kripke semantics.    (06)

The most important feature of Dunn's semantics is the definition
of the accessibility relation in terms of the laws and facts.
That is what makes his system more intuitive.    (07)

Instead of a truth-value semantics for those laws and facts,
I would represent each world by a Tarski-style model for those
laws and facts.    (08)

John    (09)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (010)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>