Category talk:Modal Logic
I did not erased the original text. This entry needs to be written. I am not skilled to write beautiful diagrams, unfortunately I do not have time to learn how to do that now. Please help giving a formal (inductive) description of the language, the inference rules, talk about K, S, etc. The notation writing the Kripke structure, etc.
I hope that the very short and quickly written text not to be taken as vandalism. This is the first time I visit this page searching some facts about modal logics.
- No, you are fine. I know little about modal logic myself, beyond what I've read in 2000: Michael R.A. Huth and Mark D. Ryan: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and reasoning about systems, so anyone who has any knowledge is more than welcome.
- Please feel free to set yourself up a user account. --prime mover 15:54, 16 May 2011 (CDT)
- I fully support the fleshing out of this area of logic, but we need a better way to break it down. I commented out the example and rewrote some of the other stuff, but (surprise) I am not a modal logician, so I'm not competent to go more in depth than I have (and indeed I've probably already mucked up something important). Please do add back in any details that I commented out that are significant and write out definitions for the linked concepts (or whatever the linked concepts should be rather than what I blindly guessed at), but we've already seen what happens when we let a definition page get out of hand with proofs and examples and other minutiae that belongs on separate pages, and I'd rather not do that again. --Alec (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (CDT)
- Good job. I believe there are others, and IIRC in epistemics it's "knowledge" and "belief" (i.e. "A knows that P" and "B believes that Q" but then I may have got that wrong as well. I'll get round to plundering Huth & Ryan in due course but I'm having too much fun with point set topology at the moment. Steady as she goes Mr. Sulu. --prime mover 00:17, 17 May 2011 (CDT)