|
|
"Christopher J. Henrich" <chenrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:290920062034172320%chenrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <efk829$f4k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Khodaeifar
> <khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "Christopher J. Henrich" <chenrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:290920061648417015%chenrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > In article <efhodb$3r8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Khodaeifar
>> > <khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Relational Model for Classical Modal Logic"
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics>
>> >
>> > Wikipedia is your friend.
>> >
>> > So also is Google. relational + model + "modal logic" got me 101,000
>> > hits, and this wikipedia article was listed among the first 10.
>> >
>>
>> I want "relational model" for "CLASSICAL modal logic"
>> in which the systems are weaker than K.
>> What Christopher J. Henrich says is true but only when
>> "Normal Systems of Modal Logic" were considerd.
> I went to "advanced search" on Google and gave as search keys the
> individual words "re;ational" and "model", and the phrase "modal
> logic".
> This got me 361 hits. This is a number that can reasonably be
> investigated in full.
>
> The two phrases "relational model" and "classical modal logic" bring it
> down to 91 hits. I'd go on to pick the best ones, but I don't want to
> spoil all your fun.
>
> BTW I think that posting replies at the bottom, not the top, works
> better.
>
> --
> Chris Henrich
> www.mathinteract.com">http://www.mathinteract.com
> God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
===========================================================
My dissertation is about "Classical Modal Logic" and I have searched many
searchengines like Google.
Many of hits are useless to me and I didn't find any suggestion about
"Modeling Classical Modal Logic" by "Relational Frames".
|
|