On 5/13/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The axiom I quoted is actually part of some "standard" deontic logic,
apparently. (See wikipedia: Deontic logic.)
I do not dispute that it is an axiom of the standard deontic logic.
But as I said, that axiom is Bentham's law that ``ought implies may'
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/9/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal
> logics with axiom D: O(A) -> P(A).
But P(A) means that A is permissible, not that A is possible.
I'm working through one of von W
On 5/9/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal
logics with axiom D: O(A) -> P(A).
But P(A) means that A is permissible, not that A is possible.
I'm working through one of von Wright's books on logic right now. I
hope to have somet
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think deontic logic might be closer,
Closer than what to what?
Closer than other modal logics to what we need.
>but it axiomatizes the concept
> that "o
On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think deontic logic might be closer,
Closer than what to what?
but it axiomatizes the concept
that "ought implies can".
It's a decent axiom, one which we used to have in the ruleset, but
there's nothing th
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need something akin to RFC 2119.
I have tried before with little success to introduce a semantics for
modal logic (or if you like, deontic logic) into Agora. Perhaps the
time has come?
I t
Ed Murphy wrote:
>We need something akin to RFC 2119.
Yes please. In some of the recent protos and rule interpretation disputes
I found myself lamenting that the language isn't formal enough. I'd like
to see a clear distinction between permission/prohibition, capacity,
mechanism, and definitions
On 5/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need something akin to RFC 2119.
I have tried before with little success to introduce a semantics for
modal logic (or if you like, deontic logic) into Agora. Perhaps the
time has come?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I tried once, but accord
Eris wrote:
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
Create a Ru
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So any entity can flip any switch?
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip c
Maud wrote:
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This takes care of "what if no state is mentioned first?" (e.g. "the
values are the players"), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler to delete ``possible''. A de
Michael Slone wrote:
> An entity flips a switch to some state by announcement.
>
>Mechanism implies capacity.
So any entity can flip any switch?
>What is the current version number of rule 478? I'm working from
>version 16.
It's now at 17. Last amended by P4939.
-zefram
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's permission. What about capacity to flip switches?
That's covered later in the rule:
An entity flips a switch to some state by announcement.
Mechanism implies capacity.
>Amend rule 478 (Fora) by replacing the text reading:
...
>
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This takes care of "what if no state is mentioned first?" (e.g. "the
values are the players"), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler to delete ``possible''. A default state is
Michael Slone wrote:
> Only entities explicitly given
> permission to flip a switch may flip it.
That's permission. What about capacity to flip switches?
>Amend rule 478 (Fora) by replacing the text reading:
...
> The Herald may change the publicity of a forum
Maud wrote:
Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to
a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific
property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch
only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is,
unl
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 04:14:45PM -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The rules may associate a switch to an entity. Each switch has
> > a collection of distinct states, including a distinguished
> > default state and a distinguished current state. A switch that
> > would not otherwi
The rules may associate a switch to an entity. Each switch has
a collection of distinct states, including a distinguished
default state and a distinguished current state. A switch that
would not otherwise have a defined default state shall have the
default state nul
19 matches
Mail list logo
