Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:40:46 +0100 (CET), V.J. Kumar wrote:

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1lepbpsij9lm3$.13c2j961bhgkr.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:44:22 +0100 (CET), V.J. Kumar wrote:

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1iraa1mnvtcji.oh5bsnrjjcdw$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx:

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:20:53 +0100 (CET), V.J. Kumar wrote:

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:12cnousl5msxh.1anmyqm356hwb$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx:

(in logic "uncertain" is usually denoted as _|_, flipped T)

In what logic ?

Ah, there are so many. Even for a tri-state logic one could take
"contradictory" T instead of "uncertain" _|_ as the third element.

Without implication, your three-valued logic is not fully
specified.

Right. That depends on the definition of implication. (not x) V y is
well defined in tri-state logic because not _|_ = _|_. But it would
be a bad implication to take.

It the Kleene logic implication. Whether it's "good" or "bad "
surely depends on the application of such logic.

For Booleans not and ~ are equivalent.

A better one is ~xVy, where ~_|_=T. That is
not closed in tri-state logic. It is in four-state Belnap logic:

x y x=>y
------------------
0 0 1
0 1 1
0 _|_ 1
1 0 0
1 1 1
1 _|_ _|_
_|_ 0 T
_|_ 1 1
_|__|_ 1


What is the truth table for ~ ?

x ~x
---------
0 1
1 0
_|_ T
T _|_

If this is the case, your logic is trivializable becaus it has formulas
that do not have a model, and in the 4-valued logic all the formulas
are supposed to have models. Consider for example ^(A=>A) for any
valuation where ^ is the ordinary negation (0->1, 1->0, _|_->_|_, T->T).

not(A=>A) is false for any A. So what?

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... That depends on the definition of implication. ... But talking informally, yes, that is one of the reasons why this ... Dmitry A. Kazakov ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... That depends on the definition of implication. ... A better one is ~xVy, ... Dmitry A. Kazakov ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
    ... That depends on the definition of implication. ... your logic is trivializable becaus it has formulas ... That depends on the inference rules. ... But talking informally, yes, that is one of the reasons why this ...
    (comp.object)