Timeline for Are buttons really enough to bound validities by S4.2?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2022 at 14:51 | answer | added | Wojciech Aleksander Wołoszyn | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 20:53 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 4, 2019 at 17:28 | vote | accept | Robert Passmann | ||
| Sep 4, 2019 at 14:41 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Regarding your questions at the end about trees, buttons don't generally help much to label trees. One wants something more like a Boolean algebra, or a pre-Boolean algebra as in my argument. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 14:32 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @EmilJeřábek A button is simply a statement that is possibly necessary at every world. And a family of buttons is independent, if you can always push any one of them (i.e. make it necessary), without inadvertently pushing the others. This control-statement terminology is meant mainly for the use of non-modal-logic experts, who can usually easily find buttons and switches in their mathematical contexts, without needing to know any modal logic. The point is that this allows non-modal-logic people to know the modal logic of their systems. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 14:25 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 13:40 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | I don’t have much idea what all these fancy terms like “button” mean, but as a modal logician, I confirm that the propositional modal logic of the Kripke frame $(\mathcal P(\mathbb N),{\subseteq})$ is S4.1$\oplus$S4.2. | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 12:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 4, 2019 at 13:53 | |||||
| Sep 4, 2019 at 12:40 | history | asked | Robert Passmann | CC BY-SA 4.0 |