Path: news.cambrium.nl!textnews.cambrium.nl!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!postnews.google.com!j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Jan Hidders <hidders@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <9c551862-881f-49b1-b6f9-f03ac8696193@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <4919dc70-6375-432e-b2aa-2f7c1b3c15ba@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> 
 <1110713c-d1cb-4d72-ade0-26ff82301b58@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> 
 <hhl4b202j7c@drn.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.82.11.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1262378511 30612 127.0.0.1 (1 Jan 2010 20:41:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.82.11.72; 
 posting-account=i7Ak-QoAAABlJ1qBkr1tS-dBPg_3Ujft
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) 
 AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.38 Safari/532.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref:  news.cambrium.nl sci.logic:158646 comp.databases.theory:38105

On 1 jan, 16:28, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> Jan Hidders says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 31 dec 2009, 18:47, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
> >wrote:
> >> From this it follows:
>
> >> 6. K_w'(p0) & K_w'(~K_w0(p0))
>
> >> Since only true things are knowable, we have:
>
> >> 7. K_w'(p0) & ~K_w0(p0)
>
> >> That's no contradiction at all! The proposition p0 is
> >> known in one world, w', but not in another world, w0.
> >> It only becomes a contradiction when you erase the
> >> world suffixes.
>
> >True, but you have now fundamentally changed the semantics of the K
> >operator in the sense that the model theory now looks very different.
> >You have essentially turned K from a unary operator K(p) to a binary
> >operator K(w,p).
>
> That's not a change of the *semantics*. That's a change of the
> *syntax*. My claim is that in the possible worlds semantics,
> every predicate (and operator) that can vary from world to world
> implicitly is a function of the world. That complexity can usually
> be avoided because implicitly we assume that everything is talking
> the same world. But when you nest <> and K, it is no longer possible
> to make that assumption. Not without restrictions on what can be
> said. My point is that the knowability principle doesn't make
> any sense without explicit mention of possible worlds.

Explicit in the formulas? So you reallly do want to change the syntax?
If not, I'm a bit puzzled as to how you want to change the semantics.
It would help if you could provide a model theory to explain how you
want to change the semantics. Right now the model theory I gave
already does allow the operator K to be different in possible worlds.
So how would your semantics differ from that?

-- Jan Hidders