Timeline for Is there a good list of nomenclature for modal axioms?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 20:04 | comment | added | J Marcos | If you're looking for my personal opinion, it will be hard to make me vote for a nomenclature connected to the old-school sacred approach to modal logic. By the way, here is a question I made a year ago about the converse of axiom 5. | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 20:01 | vote | accept | Frode Alfson Bjørdal | ||
| Mar 21, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | Frode Alfson Bjørdal | OK. I think of these names as names of the axiomatic schemas, and not as names of the corresponding properties. So I do not see a problem with a purely syntactical criterion for the use of the notion converse here. What do you think of my idea to turn the "4" upside down? | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 19:42 | comment | added | J Marcos | No, Frode, the G-axiom (a.k.a. Catach-Sahlqvist incestual schema) is only a very particular example of the Sahlqvist schema. | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 19:37 | comment | added | Frode Alfson Bjørdal | Isn't that the Sahlqvist formula or condition, João? | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 19:31 | history | answered | J Marcos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |