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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) is inadequate for representing the issue in question.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The issue cannot be represented by means of an indifference relation in their system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An indifference relation over the information state {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} necessarily contains all reflexive world-pairs, and possibly one, two, or three non-reflexive pairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In none of these cases does the resulting issue correspond to the one depicted in Figure 1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Inquisitive semantics requires that issues be representable as sets of possibilities closed under subset, yet not all natural language questions satisfy this constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Groenendijk & Roelofsen (2009) acknowledge that alternative questions generate non-partition-based issues that resist reduction to indifference relations over finite world-sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a system cannot represent the issue depicted in Figure 1 under any assignment of its formal primitives, it is structurally inadequate, not merely incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin (1973) established that the semantic value of a question is a set of propositions, not an equivalence partition, meaning partition-based systems systematically under-generate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An indifference relation over {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} can only generate issues whose possibilities are unions of equivalence classes, excluding non-transitive dependency structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The issue in Figure 1 encodes a non-transitive informational dependency that is expressible in Hamblin-style or Ciardelli-Roelofsen (2011) inquisitive frameworks but not in partition semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.