This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry should be carefully reviewed by an expert in the field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.65 ( talk • contribs)
At the moment, it seems that there is very little information on Wikipedia about logics of imperfect information (that is, IF logic, dependence logic, branching quantifiers logic and variants). I wrote a draft about dependence logic, my main area of expertise, here; when I have time, I will also try to add some information to the pages about IF logic, branching quantifiers, and game theoretic semantics.
But I was thinking: since these logical formalisms are very much related with each other, would it make sense to create a "logics of imperfect information" subcategory for them? My apologies if this is not the proper place for this suggestion, I am new here - Pietro Galliani ( talk) 08:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the page on Dependence Logic was accepted, it is now here. I added a section to this page with links to it an to a couple of other related pages, I hope it is ok. -- Pietro Galliani ( talk) 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Nortexoid changed (among other things)
(written by me as 76.84.155.213) into
with the edit summary "clarifying".
This doesn't seem clearer to me, quite the opposite in fact. However, brevity is also a reasonable goal, so I won't change it back; however, I'm preserving my version here, in case others want to think about how short and/or clear it should be. (However, I will fix the grammar, and revert an unwarranted spelling change while I'm at it.)
— Toby Bartels 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
On a second look, the word "only" (in both places) certainly does make it clearer, so anybody that prefers my longer version should still include Nortexoid's "only"s. — Toby Bartels 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a cite to an interesting article of Feferman that criticises IF logic and Hintikka's claims for it. [1] IF-logic at first sounded too good to be true and Feferman's article cleared things up somewhat for me. I don't think I explained the issue very well though. Maybe someone more expert than I am could take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.4.229 ( talk) 09:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely remember that this same idea was invented previously by someone else (sounds like "Hanken"). He used curly braces and put "forall a exists c" one one line above "forall b exists d" on the second line. Each existentially quantified variable could be made dependent on an arbitrary subset of the universally quantified variables. This is equivalent to putting existential quantifiers for functions first and then following them by universal quantifiers for individual objects, then substituting the universally quantified variables into the slots of the function variables to get the desired dependences. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry should be carefully reviewed by an expert in the field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.65 ( talk • contribs)
At the moment, it seems that there is very little information on Wikipedia about logics of imperfect information (that is, IF logic, dependence logic, branching quantifiers logic and variants). I wrote a draft about dependence logic, my main area of expertise, here; when I have time, I will also try to add some information to the pages about IF logic, branching quantifiers, and game theoretic semantics.
But I was thinking: since these logical formalisms are very much related with each other, would it make sense to create a "logics of imperfect information" subcategory for them? My apologies if this is not the proper place for this suggestion, I am new here - Pietro Galliani ( talk) 08:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the page on Dependence Logic was accepted, it is now here. I added a section to this page with links to it an to a couple of other related pages, I hope it is ok. -- Pietro Galliani ( talk) 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Nortexoid changed (among other things)
(written by me as 76.84.155.213) into
with the edit summary "clarifying".
This doesn't seem clearer to me, quite the opposite in fact. However, brevity is also a reasonable goal, so I won't change it back; however, I'm preserving my version here, in case others want to think about how short and/or clear it should be. (However, I will fix the grammar, and revert an unwarranted spelling change while I'm at it.)
— Toby Bartels 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
On a second look, the word "only" (in both places) certainly does make it clearer, so anybody that prefers my longer version should still include Nortexoid's "only"s. — Toby Bartels 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a cite to an interesting article of Feferman that criticises IF logic and Hintikka's claims for it. [1] IF-logic at first sounded too good to be true and Feferman's article cleared things up somewhat for me. I don't think I explained the issue very well though. Maybe someone more expert than I am could take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.4.229 ( talk) 09:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely remember that this same idea was invented previously by someone else (sounds like "Hanken"). He used curly braces and put "forall a exists c" one one line above "forall b exists d" on the second line. Each existentially quantified variable could be made dependent on an arbitrary subset of the universally quantified variables. This is equivalent to putting existential quantifiers for functions first and then following them by universal quantifiers for individual objects, then substituting the universally quantified variables into the slots of the function variables to get the desired dependences. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)