Andrew Jeffery
@andrewvjeffery.bsky.social
Philosopher. Career adjunct currently working at four institutions.
Interests: ontology of law, ethics, karaoke.
Favorite Quote: "A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." -- Plutarch
Interests: ontology of law, ethics, karaoke.
Favorite Quote: "A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." -- Plutarch
Can someone check my modal logic here?
A. N. Prior once denied the validity of <>p -> <>(p v q):
But if that formula can't be affirmed, then by trans., DeM, and substitution, neither could [] (A & B) -> [] A.
To understate it, such a system would not be closed under tautological consequence!
A. N. Prior once denied the validity of <>p -> <>(p v q):
But if that formula can't be affirmed, then by trans., DeM, and substitution, neither could [] (A & B) -> [] A.
To understate it, such a system would not be closed under tautological consequence!
February 14, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Can someone check my modal logic here?
A. N. Prior once denied the validity of <>p -> <>(p v q):
But if that formula can't be affirmed, then by trans., DeM, and substitution, neither could [] (A & B) -> [] A.
To understate it, such a system would not be closed under tautological consequence!
A. N. Prior once denied the validity of <>p -> <>(p v q):
But if that formula can't be affirmed, then by trans., DeM, and substitution, neither could [] (A & B) -> [] A.
To understate it, such a system would not be closed under tautological consequence!