Posted by Tazz

Announcements | Last Post | |
---|---|---|

myUnisa availability 21 to 24 March 2019 | 03/17/2019 02:24PM | |

SoC Curricula | 09/30/2017 01:08PM | |

Demarcation or scoping of examinations and assessment | 02/13/2017 07:59AM | |

School of Computing Short Learning Programmes | 11/24/2014 08:37AM | |

Unisa contact information | 07/28/2011 01:28PM |

7a) [](p or q)

then add what eddy said..

From each world, another world is accissible which either is true for p, true for q, or both. However, this is only true in this particular model. For it to be a valid formula, it would have to be true for each and every possible model. For instance, if there is another world accissible from d, and that world is not true for p or q (has no label), then this formula is no longer valid...

then add what eddy said..

From each world, another world is accissible which either is true for p, true for q, or both. However, this is only true in this particular model. For it to be a valid formula, it would have to be true for each and every possible model. For instance, if there is another world accissible from d, and that world is not true for p or q (has no label), then this formula is no longer valid...

Finally I'm able to contribute here, and I'm stuck. i, ii, iii = no problem I'm aware of.

For iv I get this:

Worlds accessible from b = c

Worlds accessible from c =

a ... With Worlds accessible = d ----- where p is T <-------??

d ... With Worlds accessible = c (satisfies ~p )

c ... With Worlds accessible =

... a = ~~p

... d = ~~ p

... c = ~p.

So even if I put it to a vote, I get more ~p than p. More to the point I don't get exclusively either. What am I doing wrong?

For iv I get this:

Worlds accessible from b = c

Worlds accessible from c =

a ... With Worlds accessible = d ----- where p is T <-------??

d ... With Worlds accessible = c (satisfies ~p )

c ... With Worlds accessible =

... a = ~~p

... d = ~~ p

... c = ~p.

So even if I put it to a vote, I get more ~p than p. More to the point I don't get exclusively either. What am I doing wrong?

Ok, here's my explanation to (iv)

In order for it to hold box box ~p has to be true in all worlds accessible from b, only c is accessible. In order for box box ~p to be true in c, box~p has to be true in all world accessible from c. Which are c itself, and d. Let's examine c, ~p has to be true in all world accessible from c, in d p is true so .. IT DOES NOT HOLD.

I think I made a mistake earlier. Does this make more sense?

In order for it to hold box box ~p has to be true in all worlds accessible from b, only c is accessible. In order for box box ~p to be true in c, box~p has to be true in all world accessible from c. Which are c itself, and d. Let's examine c, ~p has to be true in all world accessible from c, in d p is true so .. IT DOES NOT HOLD.

I think I made a mistake earlier. Does this make more sense?

I think that's right, then. I'm a bit in the dark here, to be honest. I'm basically trying to apply hexium's methods, as I understand them, because that seems to make sense to me.

I think you're right now, then. Taking B = box, we start with

B**B**__B__*B*phi

B's scope is**B**__B__*B*phi

**B**'s scope __B__*B*phi

__B__'s *B*phi .. at which point we have to satisfy every little unravelled bit of thread for phi for it to hold.

It would then work pictorially as a kind of tree graph, getting pretty frayed at the end if there are a lot of boxes.

I THINK ...

I think you're right now, then. Taking B = box, we start with

B

B's scope is

It would then work pictorially as a kind of tree graph, getting pretty frayed at the end if there are a lot of boxes.

I THINK ...

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.