Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:56:59 -0700
In article <slrnev8k89.103d.cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Menzel says...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:40:38 GMT, Neil Madden <nem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
T(x, y) <=> G(x, y) \/ (Ez).(G(x, z) /\ T(z, y)).
(Hopefully that is readable: E is existential quantification here).
The author then describes a counter-example (example 2.1.1):
"Consider the directed graph with two vertices a and b, and with a
single directed edge G(b, b). Consider a structure with universe {a,
b} that interprets G as {(b, b)} and T as {(a, b), (b, b)}.
Actually, it seems to me that the textbook is wrong. The definition
of T(x,y) has the consequence
T(x,y) -> Ez G(x,z)
So in particular
T(a,b) -> Ez G(a,z)
Since the right-hand side is false, then so is the left-hand side.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- References:
- Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Neil Madden
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Chris Menzel
- Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Prev by Date: Re: help with Godel's
- Next by Date: Re: help with Godel's
- Previous by thread: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Next by thread: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Index(es):