Logic Lecture: Introduction to Modal Logic - 4
Loading...
Loading...
7:20
Logic Lecture: Introduction to Modal Logic - 5by drjasonjcampbell1,363 views- 8:45
Logic Lecture: Introduction to Modal Logic - 3by drjasonjcampbell1,442 views
- 16:38
Logic Lecture: Epistemic Modal Logic and Rumsfeld Known Knowns and Zizek's Unknown Knownsby drjasonjcampbell2,406 views
- 8:52
Logic Lecture: Introduction to Modal Logic - 2by drjasonjcampbell2,347 views
- 7:05
1. Prisoner's Dilemma & the Problem of Free Ridersby drjasonjcampbell795 views
- 7:00
1. Logic Lecture: Symbolic Logicby drjasonjcampbell15,275 views
- 24:54
Logic Lecture: Constructing Venn Diagramsby drjasonjcampbell566 views
- 4:57
Presocratic Philosophy -1by drjasonjcampbell1,526 views
- 18:45
4. Logic Lecture: Predicate Logic: Formal Proofs of Validity: Universal Instantiationby drjasonjcampbell4,462 views
- 6:03
11. Logic Lecture: Symbolic Logicby drjasonjcampbell1,799 views
- 15:16
Logic Lecture: Problems in Logic: Brain Exercisesby drjasonjcampbell496 views
- 7:37
12. Logic Lecture: Symbolic Logicby drjasonjcampbell1,754 views
- 15:20
8. Logic Lecture: Predicate Logic: Formal Proofs of Validity: Conditional Proofby drjasonjcampbell2,338 views
- 7:48
10. Logic Lecture: Symbolic Logicby drjasonjcampbell2,165 views
- 15:57
13. The Polish Notation System, Nand, Nor Operators and Formal Proofs of Validityby drjasonjcampbell240 views
- 12:27
5. Logic Lecture: Predicate Logic: Formal Proofs of Validity: Universal Generalizationby drjasonjcampbell1,774 views
- 3:19
conditional, converse, inverse, contrapositiveby LudiMachine6,094 views
- 56:47
Lecture 1 - Propositional Logicby nptelhrd211,296 views
- 10:36
4. Logic Lecture: Using Reductio Ad Absurdum to Test Validityby drjasonjcampbell320 views
- 10:21
5. Logic Lecture: Using Reductio Ad Absurdum to Test Validityby drjasonjcampbell245 views
@piplepipo LOL...I sense the NERD is strong in this one! :-)
drjasonjcampbell 8 months ago 2
@francopalombo
No, this is no theorem of this system of modal logic. But I don't think he is saying that. He says that if A is possible, then it is necessarily possible (axiom 5) and that PA and PPA are equivalent, which is a theorem of this system.
LaureanoLuna 1 year ago
You should make it clear that your S4 is not equivalent to the conjunction of your (m) and your 4: it is strictly weaker.
Your S4, NA iff NNA, does not imply your axiom (m): if NA, then A; because 'if NNA, then NA' does not imply 'if NA, then A'. The point is that while A stands for any formula whatsoever, that is not the case for NA.
In addition, the claim that if NA, then NA is a tautology. You don't need any modal axiom to derive this.
LaureanoLuna 1 year ago
This definitely deserves more views. Highly appreciate these videos
Pooklook91 1 year ago
¿ if A is posible, then it is posible that A is necesari? ´{ min 7:35}
just asking
francopalombo 1 year ago
¿ if A is posible, then it is posible that A is necesari?
just asking
francopalombo 1 year ago