Prev: The Definition of Points
Next: An exercise in set theory: How high do we get by autonomously iterating the powerset operation?
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 16 May 2007 11:23
On 2007-05-15, in sci.logic, Lee Rudolph wrote:
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> writes:
>
> Not strange at all. We can infer, surely, that Aatu has a proof
> that Usenet will persist until (and possibly) after the end of
> time. What could be *more* comforting?

Alas, the proof relies on the axiom of playful universe. There might be hope
-- Alexander Abian, in private communication, has told me he thinks the
axiom might not be necessary.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 16 May 2007 12:05
Gboro54 <gboro54(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On May 14, 5:17 pm, galathaea <galath...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> for a good example of where naive use of first-order logic
>> can lead one to paradox and computational deadlock
>> i'd suggest looking up the
>>
>> " cheating muddy children puzzle "
>> and how the modal dynamic epistemic logic
>> can provide a resolution
>
> where can i find this puzzle at...google does not like the search for
> it

Here's a nice presentation:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/Muenster.pdf
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Social castigation. Their pictures in the papers. Reporters hounding
them with hard questions. And it won't end during their lifetimes."
-- Oppose James S. Harris and you get post-mortem hardball interviews
From: J. Burse on 16 May 2007 12:16
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Gboro54 <gboro54(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On May 14, 5:17 pm, galathaea <galath...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> for a good example of where naive use of first-order logic
>>> can lead one to paradox and computational deadlock
>>> i'd suggest looking up the
>>>
>>> " cheating muddy children puzzle "
>>> and how the modal dynamic epistemic logic
>>> can provide a resolution
>> where can i find this puzzle at...google does not like the search for
>> it
>
> Here's a nice presentation:
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/Muenster.pdf

It is also told with 3 wizards etc..

McCarthy tells this puzzle often.
From: J. Burse on 16 May 2007 12:21
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Gboro54 <gboro54(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On May 14, 5:17 pm, galathaea <galath...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> for a good example of where naive use of first-order logic
>>> can lead one to paradox and computational deadlock
>>> i'd suggest looking up the
>>>
>>> " cheating muddy children puzzle "
>>> and how the modal dynamic epistemic logic
>>> can provide a resolution
>> where can i find this puzzle at...google does not like the search for
>> it
>
> Here's a nice presentation:
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/Muenster.pdf

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/modality.pdf

Footnote on Page 3
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Definition of Points
Next: An exercise in set theory: How high do we get by autonomously iterating the powerset operation?