![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Epistemic modal logic is so weak, can anyone find a justification for it? It seems so screwed it isn't even worth mentioning. I'll even count a vague endorsement by some contemporary logician. Just give me something-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article, the english description doesn't seem to fit the formal definition ... there seems to be a K missing. 92.230.66.116 ( talk) 11:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
the citation source for No 3 is no longer there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.165.48 ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Epistemic modal logic is so weak, can anyone find a justification for it? It seems so screwed it isn't even worth mentioning. I'll even count a vague endorsement by some contemporary logician. Just give me something-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article, the english description doesn't seem to fit the formal definition ... there seems to be a K missing. 92.230.66.116 ( talk) 11:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
the citation source for No 3 is no longer there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.165.48 ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)