RE : Neuroquantology
> I was wondering if anyone has had experience of this journal, and > whether its publishing standards are as rigorous as they claim. A good way to evaluate the seriousness of a journal is to check its editorial board. It should consist of the "big guys" in the research area covered by the journal. _ Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Plus de moyens pour rester en contact. http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE : Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics
> Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that > involve > logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of > syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic? my guess is: just any theory using binary logic. _ Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Capacité de stockage illimitée pour vos emails. http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics
> My main > goal is that I seem to need to show that such a fuzzy set theory, one > with a "universal set," is ++consistent relative to ZFC++ or at > least > prove that that's not possible (ie, prove a generalization of > Russell's "paradox"). It is proved in Paraconsistent Logic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#MatSig _ Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Capacité de stockage illimitée pour vos emails. http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE : Re: Discussion of the MUH
Bruno Marchal wrote: > To tackle the math of that "physical bord", I use the Godel Lob > Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL). Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory? or something that could be checked experimentally? _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: modal logic KTB (a.k.a. B)
Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > logic B (KTB) can be used to capture a notion of vagueness, and, by a > theorem of Goldblatt, it can be used to formalise classicaly a minimal > form of von Neuman quantum logic in a manner similar to the way the > modal logic S4, or S4Grz, capture intuitionistic logic. The Gödel-McKinsey-Tarski translation from intuitionistic logic to S4 can be defined in different ways. The most concise one is by saying that one has to insert a [] before every subformula. Can we reformulate the translation by Goldblatt in a similar way, e.g., by saying that one has to insert []<> before every subformula ? > > Suppose the atomic propositions are what I currently know on a > > physical system. > > This does not make sense. Really? it made some sense to me... > Again. Just remember that I am not supposing any physics at all, nor > any "physical world". My initial question was not referring to your work in particular. However I would be glad to hear more from your point of view. > Did you grasp the UDA's point? No, but I am interested in and will try to catch up. _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: modal logic KTB (a.k.a. B)
> The idea is to identify an accessible world with possible results of > experiments. Symmetry then entails that if you do an experiment which > gives some result, you can repeat the experience and get those results > again. You can come back in the world you leave. It is an intuitive and > informal idea which is discussed from time to time in the literature. I do not understand. What are the atomic propositions at each world? Suppose the atomic propositions are what I currently know on a physical system. Now suppose that I am in a world where I know (more or less) the momentum of a particle. I then measure its position and thus move in another world. It is now unlikely that the particle has the same momentum (due the the uncertainty principle). Thus, if I measure again its momentum, I might go back but I cannot be sure I will go back to the same previous world. It is true that I can measure again the position and get the same result, but it is because of reflexivity, not because of symmetry. Why do you say this is entailed by symmetry? This might be because you define the worlds of the frame in another way... > I suggest you consult the Orthologic paper by Goldblatt 1974, if you are > interested. Unfortunately I have no access to this article. Can you advise me a paper available on internet where this idea is discussed? _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE : Re: modal logic KTB (a.k.a. B)
Dear Bruno, Thank you for your reply. You wrote that 'B is valid in the frames where "result of experience" can be verified or repeated'. Can you be more explicit because I cannot see the relation with the fact that the accessibility relation is reflexive and symmetric (a proximity relation). I know that in the Provability Logic GL, []A is to be read as "A is provable". (I write [] for Box). "A is provable" does not mean that I have an explicit proof of A. Indeed, in the context of the first-order arithmetic, "A is provable" only means that "there exists a number which is a code of a proof of A". I also know that in S4, []A is to be read as "A is constructively provable": S4, which was shown by Sergei Artemov to be a forgetful projection of the Logic of Proofs LP. Could we also interpret B also in terms of some kind of provability? _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---