- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Jacques Bailhache <jacquesbailhache.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:14:33 +0000

Hi Bruno, I'm back :-)

The axiom B(Bp->p)->Bp seems very strange to me.

Is it applicable only to machines or also to humans ?

Intuitively, let us consider for example p = "Santa Claus exists".

I don't believe that Santa Claus exists (~Bp).

If I consider the proposition "Bp->p" which means "If I believe that Santa

Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists", this proposition seems true to me,

because of le propositional logic rule "ex falso quodlibet sequitur" or

false->p : the false proposition Bp implies any proposition, for example p.

So I can say thay I believe in the proposition Bp->p : B(Bp->p). According

to the lobian formula B(Bp->p)->Bp, this implies Bp (I believe that Santa

Claus exist) !

More formally :

The axiom ~Bp->B(~Bp) seems correct to me, isn't it ?

It seems also correct to me to say that the logical rules are valid inside

believes, for example : (B(p->q) and B(q->r)) -> B(p->r), or B(F->p) where F

is the false proposition.

Let us consider a p such that ~Bp, which is equivalent to (Bp)->F.

Then we have B(~Bp), which is equivalent to B(Bp->F).

*>From this and B(F->p) we can infer B(Bp->p).
*

Finally with the lobian formula B(Bp->p)->Bp we get Bp.

Is there an error anywhere ?

_________________________________________________________________

Trouvez l'âme soeur sur MSN Rencontres http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9551

Received on Fri Sep 24 2004 - 07:06:33 PDT

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:14:33 +0000

Hi Bruno, I'm back :-)

The axiom B(Bp->p)->Bp seems very strange to me.

Is it applicable only to machines or also to humans ?

Intuitively, let us consider for example p = "Santa Claus exists".

I don't believe that Santa Claus exists (~Bp).

If I consider the proposition "Bp->p" which means "If I believe that Santa

Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists", this proposition seems true to me,

because of le propositional logic rule "ex falso quodlibet sequitur" or

false->p : the false proposition Bp implies any proposition, for example p.

So I can say thay I believe in the proposition Bp->p : B(Bp->p). According

to the lobian formula B(Bp->p)->Bp, this implies Bp (I believe that Santa

Claus exist) !

More formally :

The axiom ~Bp->B(~Bp) seems correct to me, isn't it ?

It seems also correct to me to say that the logical rules are valid inside

believes, for example : (B(p->q) and B(q->r)) -> B(p->r), or B(F->p) where F

is the false proposition.

Let us consider a p such that ~Bp, which is equivalent to (Bp)->F.

Then we have B(~Bp), which is equivalent to B(Bp->F).

Finally with the lobian formula B(Bp->p)->Bp we get Bp.

Is there an error anywhere ?

_________________________________________________________________

Trouvez l'âme soeur sur MSN Rencontres http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9551

Received on Fri Sep 24 2004 - 07:06:33 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*