Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 7
Standard Semantics/Kripke Semantics/Hintikka: what differences are there? The ditch between standard semantics and Kripke semantics is much deeper than it first appears.
Cocchiarella: Cocchiarella has shown, however, that even in the simplest quantifying case of the monadic predicate logic, the standard logic is radically different from its Kripke cousin.
Decidability: monadic predicate logic is, as Kripke has shown, decidable.
Kripke semantics: Kripke semantics is undecidable.
Decisibility: Decisibility implies axiomatizability.
Stronger/weaker/Hintikka: as soon as we go beyond monadic predicate logic, we have a logic of considerable strength, complexity, and unruliness.
Quantified standard modal logic of the 1. level/Hintikka: the quantified standard modal logic of the 1. level is in a sense more powerful than the 2. level logic (with standard semantics). The latter is, of course, already very strong, so that some of the most difficult unresolved logical and quantum-theoretical problems can be expressed in terms of logical truth (or fulfillment) in logical formulas of the second level.
Def equally strong/stronger/weaker/Hintikka: (here): the terms "stronger" and "weaker" are used to show an equally difficult decision-making problem.
Decision problem: the standard logic of the 2. level can be reduced to that for quantified standard modal logic of the 1. level.
Reduction: this reduction is weaker than translatability.
II 9
Quantified standard modal logic of the 1. level/Hintikka: this logic is very strong, comparable in strength with the 2. level logic. It follows that it is not axiomatizable (HintikkaVsKripke).
The stronger a logic is, the less manageable it is.
II 28
Branching Quantifiers/stronger/weaker/Hintikka:
E.g. branching here:
1. Branch: there is an x and b knows...
2. Branch: b knows there is an x ...
Quantification with branched quantifiers is extremely strong, almost as strong as 2. level logic.
Therefore, it cannot be completely axiomatized (quantified epistemic logic with unlimited independence).
II 29
Variant: variants are simpler cases where the independence refers to ignorance, combined with a move with a single, non-negated operator {b} K. Here, an explicit treatment is possible.
II 118
Seeing/stronger/weaker/logical form/Hintikka:
a) stronger: recognizing, recognizing as, seeing as.
b) weaker: to look at, to keep a glance on, etc.
Weaker/logical form/seeing/knowing/Hintikka: e.g.
(Perspective, "Ex")
(15) (Ex) ((x = b) & (Ey) John sees that (x = y)).
(16) (Ex)(x = b & (Ey) John remembers that x = y))
(17) (Ex)(x = b & (Ey) KJohn (x = y))
Acquaintance/N.B.: in (17) b can be John's acquaintance even if John does not know b as b! ((S) because of y).
II 123
Everyday Language/ambiguity/Hintikka: the following expression is ambiguous:
(32) I see d
Stronger:
(33) (Ex) I see that (d = x)
That says the same as (31) if the information is visual or weaker:
(34) (Ex) (d = x & (Ey) I see that (x = y))
This is the most natural translation of (32).
Weaker: for the truth of (34) it is enough that my eyes simply rest on the object d. I do not need to recognize it as d.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.