Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Classical entailment restricts the space of relevant poss... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→In classical theories of entailment, the relevant possibilities are those where all necessities in X are true

    Classical entailment restricts the space of relevant possibilities to those satisfying what is taken as necessary in X

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    In classical theories of entailment, the relevant possibilities are those where ...

    Similar

    In classical theories of entailment, the relevant possibilities are th...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    80%
    Supervenience is not in general sufficient for entailment.79%
    Bolzano's semantic notion of entailment requires that from the smalles...79%
    An entailment criterion allows any component of a sentence to contribu...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-substructural
    View source passageHide passage
    This counterexample can also be understood in terms of behaviour of premise combination. Here when we say \(X,A \vdash B\) is true, we are not just saying that \(B\) holds in any circumstance in which \(X\) and \(A\) both hold. If we are after a genuine entailment A \(\rightarrow\) B, then we want \(B\) to be true in any (related) circumstance in which \(A\) is true. So, \(X,A \vdash B\) says that in any possibility in which \(A\) is true, so is \(B\). These possibilities might not satisfy all

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective