Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
  1. Clarify by replacing nonsensical “n-unary” and “n-binary”.

    Mark John Hopkins

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2023

    I have touched wording, hyperlinking and formatting throughout the entry.

    But this entry is still lacking content. E.g. it defines a Kripke frame to be exactly a binary relation and then leaves it at that.

    In particular the comments in the References-section seem out of place until there is some content here that could possibly be erroneous.

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2023

    Right, something of a concept with an attitude. Perhaps the entry could make clearer that Kripke frames are a component part of Kripke models, as described at geometric model for modal logics (contrasted with algebraic model for modal logics).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2023

    The entry geometric model for modal logics is only marginally better: Who spots the connection between the modal operator and those relations (hidden in the fifth item of “Satisfaction”, using undeclared notation) without which there is no meaning to the definitions.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2023

    Adding reference

    • Olivier Gasquet, Andreas Herzig, Bilal Said, François Schwarzentruber (2013). Kripke’s Worlds: An Introduction to Modal Logics via Tableaux. Springer. ISBN 978-3764385033. (doi:10.1007/978-3-7643-8504-0)

    diff, v24, current

  2. Have added something to the introduction, along the lines of #3.

    diff, v25, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    But the entry still just declares the bare concept and not its actual attitude.

    Why not add a line connecting the modal operator to the relation. Without that discussed, it seems all pointless.

  3. Better now?

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    The definition in the entry says essentially:

    “Given a modal operator, then a Kripke frame is a binary relation RR. Period.”

    This is not contentful. For it to be contentful, there needs to be a statement that refers back to the modal operator in the assumption.

    Otherwise the content of the entry is logically equivalent to: “Given a pink elephant, a Kripke frame is a binary relation RR.”

    So at the very least it needs to say something like this:

    “Given a modal operator \lozenge, then a Kripke frame is a set equipped with a binary relation RR, where R(w,v)R(w,v) is interpreted as asserting that ϕ\lozenge \phi holds in world wWw \in W if ϕ\phi holds in world vWv \in W.”

  4. So that needs changing. A Kripke frame isn’t defined relative to a given modal operator. It just is a non-empty set with a binary relation. A Kripke model then adds to a frame a valuation, a map from propositional variables to subsets of worlds. Then we can speak of what it means to say of a model that at some given world some modal proposition is true.

    It really is a concept with an attitude, the attitude being how it will be taken up by the concept of a model, and the satisfaction relation relative to a model.

    I’ll see what I can do to make this clear.

  5. It really doesn’t deserve any length this entry, so I’ve pruned it.

    diff, v28, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    Hm, I didn’t think that removing information was the way to go in the face of too little information. :-)

    If it helps, imagine a student asking you for what a Kripke frame is, how would they ever understand it from this entry?

    But never mind, evidently I should go and edit myself instead of trying to make somebody else do it. I’ll try to find the time later, at some point.

  6. Well I think I’ve made it a lot clearer that it’s a subsidiary concept. It only makes proper sense when taken up in the larger notion of a Kripke model. It’s like we’re dwelling on the contents of a page for the carrier set of a group, and you’re saying there must be more to it than the carrier set being a non-empty set.