3 views

Uploaded by Rob Grosseteste

© All Rights Reserved

- Avicenna Daneshnameh Part 1: LOGIC
- Modality
- rodin-doc
- Fine K. Aristotle’s Megarian Manoeuvres 2011.pdf
- Artificial Intelligence
- Philosophy
- PHIL 132-Introduction to Logic-M. Shabbir Ahsen
- Carnap Logical Foundations of Probability
- Rr310502 Artificial Intelligence
- C3
- Van Heijenoort (1974) Subject and Predicate in Western Logic
- 2225751 Wittgenstein Ludwig Tractatus
- IPTSTS 080 - Relational Syllogisms and the History of Arabic Logic, 900-1900.pdf
- The Dretske–Tooley–Armstrong Theory of Natural Laws and the Inference Problem
- Rationality and the Mind in Early Buddhism_Hoffman_1987
- Buss Thesis OCR
- Tgs Bibliografi
- BCG Case Interview
- 2008 Must Stay Strong
- Salt 18 Haida

You are on page 1of 10

&

THE MODAL PREDICATE LOGIC PS*S

AND THE GROSSETESTE ALGEBRA O F SETS GS*S

by ROBERT1;. WILSONin Dundee (Scotland)

Q 1. Introduction

The modal predicate logic PS*S [l] is based on the 6-valued modal propositional

logic S*S [ 2 ] . I n PS we work,with four kinds of provability and rejection: PSik

and P s i + , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and in the semantics four kinds of validity: PSi-validity.

The formal system PS ( $ 2 ) is based on SMULLYANS

analytic tableaux as applied

to quantification theory [3] (especially Chs. IV, V) but here we present simplified

tableaux which make use of definitional rules. I n 4 3 only a summary of the semantics PS* is given. I n $ 4 we show that every closed wff (cwff) of PS is Psi-equivalent

(i.e. equivalent w.r.t. PsiI-) to a cwff in prenex normal form. We obtain as a simple

corollary the result that every modality de re is PS,-equivalent to a modality de

dicto. I n 9 5 we turn attention to the underlying modal propositional logic S*S

and give a informal account of the idea of a new algebra of sets grounded on S*S:

the GROSSETESTE

algebra of sets GS*S. Throughout this paper i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and

i = 1,2.

5 2.

functors M , L, T ; quantifiers V and 3; denumerable lists of individual variables

x ,y , z , . . ., individual parameters a , b , c , . , . (the set II),and for each positive

integer n , n-ary predicates P,Q , R,. . . (in every case with or without subscripts);

and finally, five signs - T I ,F , , I I (PSC1-signs) and T P ,

F2 (PSC2-signs). The

definition of wff and cwff in PS are along the usual lines. By a signed wff (swff)

in PS we mean a formula XX where X is a wff and X denotes a sign.

We now present the PS-tableaux rules for swff.

PS-Tableaux Rules

Here X , Y , Z are schematic variables for cwff, and a7denotes any parameter

and b any new parameter not already introduced in the branch.

I. D e f i n i t i o n a l R u l e s

1.

XKXY

XNANXN Y

2.

SAXY

XCCX Y Y

3.

N o t e : in 6. j = 2 delete I I X

I1Y

SEXY

SKCXYCYX

4.

XLX

XNMNX

5.

StlXZ.X

SN3xNZ.r

272

ROBERT L. WILSON

111. Modal R u l e s ( M , T)

TlMX

13.

TiX 1 F i x I I X

T J

14. T,MX

15. F,MX

16.

T,X

FZX

IV. RuIes f o r Quantifiers

12.

18. T , ~ s Z

Tie:

19. Fj3&

FjZ:

20.

I1TX

FIX I I1X

T z T X 17. FzTX

T2X

F2X

(3)

113~2

I1 2:

FIZZ 112:

Definitions of P s i - P r o v a b i l i t y a n d P s i - R e j e c t i o n

Closed PS-tableaux are tableaux in which every branch is closed i.e. every branch

is either incompatible (containing two swff which differ only in sign) or broken

(containing a swff of the form F I M X , I I M X , T I T X or F I T X ) . Let s ( S X ) denote

a tableau with S X as origin.

Let Gstand for there exists a closed tableau. .. and

exists an open branch. . ..

0 stand

for there

D 2. PS, t. X if Gs ( F , X ) .

D3. PS3 t X if Q $ ( F I X )and Q $ ( I I X ) and Q ( F , X ) .

D4. PS, t- X if G $ ( F I X ) and Q ( I 1 X )or G S ( F , X ) .

and, or

D5. For PS; X , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , replace t, 6

s,

3. Summary of the Semantics PS*

The underlying modal logic S*S is 6-valued: 3-valued under C1, [4] with C1-truthvalues tl , f l , il, and 2-valued under Cz, with C2-truth-valuest 2 , f, . The Cj-truthtables for the modal functors M . L and T are as in the tables.

absolute verum operators respectively. Also, as in [ l ] and [2]:

L p ? is interpreted as It is necessary that p is (&,-true.

Tp is interpreted as p is C,-true.

273

1. A cwff A of PS is PSCj-satisfiable if A is C,-true under a t least one PSCj-interpretation (i.e. in a t least one universe U of constants).

2. A cwff A of PS is PSC,-valid if A is Cj-true under every PSCj-interpretation

in every universe U of constants.

The semantic rules for the quantifiers V and 3 are such that under any PSCj.

int,erpretation :

VxPx is

2 . VxPx is

3. 3xPx is

4. 3xPx is

1.

Cj-true iff

Cj-false iff

Cj-false iff

Cj-true iff

for some k E U, Pk is Cj-false.

for every k E U, Pk is Cj-false.

for some k E U,Pk is Cj-true.

every k E U , Pk is C1-true or C1-indeterminate.

6. 3rPx is C1-indeterminate iff for some 1 E U , PI is C,-indeterminate and for

every k E U , Pk is C1-false or C1-indeterminate.

Under C2, the quantifiers behave as in quantification theory [3] Chs. IV, V,

while under C1, the significant semantical feature of the quantifiers V and 3

is their connection with the semantics of and and or respectively in the %valued

logic. Thus, for a denumerable universe U of constants say 11 = {kl, k 2 , . . .>,

under C, (and C2 as well):

3xPx is semantically equivalent to Pk,or Pk2or . . . where ki U.

We define the four kinds of validity in PS as follows:

1. PSI- and PS2-validity are defined by the two fundamental kinds of validity in

PS, PSCl- and PSC,-validity respectively.

2 . X is PS,-valid if X is PSC,-valid and X is PSC2-valid.

We can also speak of sub-logics PS,*Sj, each associated with PSj-validity (and

Psi-invalidity) and PSi-provability (and Psi-rejection).

Considering now the semantical interpretation of PS-tableaus, PSC1-tableaux are

given only PSC,-interpret,at,ions, whereas PSC,-tableaux are given only PSC2interpretations.

We can prove the semantical consistency and completeness for PS*S along the

same lines as [l]. We state here the general theorem (GT).

Yemantical C o n s i s t e n c y f o r PS*S

(1) If PSj 1 X then X ia PSj-2-aZid.

18

274

ROBERT L. WILSON

S e m a n t i c a l C o m p l e t e n e s s f o r PS*S

(1) If X is PSi-vulid then

Psi k X.

Proof. The proof of GT is omitted (same lines as given in [l]).The new feature

in our treatment here is that we have introduced definitional rules I Q 2 . We illustrate here the key semantical property used in the proof for rule 5 of I Q 2, case

S = I l . Under any PSCl-interpretation we have:

IIVxPx is tl iff

VxPx is il

iff

(see rule 5 9 3)

iff

iff

iff

N3xNPx is il

iff

IlN3xNPx is tl.

E U , NPk is f l or NPk is il

11N3xNPx is PSC1-valid.

We also have analogous properties for all the PS-tableaux rules given in Q 2 (see

also SMULLYAN

[3] Chs. IV, V).

Q 4. Some Properties of the Formal System PS

The three derived rules DR1, DR2 and RDR2 [5] hold in PS. I n stating the

various properties we will speak of sub-systems Psi but it is important t o keep in

mind the fact that these are results that hold w.r.t. PSik in the full system PS.

The proofs, which are by PS-tableaux 4 2, are omitted.

We discuss only the equivalences involving N and the modal operators M , L

and T.The theorems listed here hold w.r.t. PSik and we omit this prefix.

For negation N , we have:

1. h'QxNPxN3xPx

2. E 3 x N P x ~ x P x

3. E3xMPxM3xPx

4. E3xLPxL3xPx

5 . E3xTPxT3xPx

6. EYxMPxMVxPx

7. EVxLPxLVxPx

8 . EVxTPxTVzPx.

The additional equivalences involving the non-modal functors C, A , K , and E needed for our result (e.g. SMULLYAN

[3] p. 117) all hold in Psi. Hence we have the

result :

T h e o r e m P N F . Every cwff in Ps is PS,-equivalent to a cwff in prenex normal

form.

275

with K and A in the underlying 6-valued propositional modal logic S*S it will help

us to see why 3-8, 4.1 hold. I n S*S (and PS*S), we have:

9. EMApqAMpMq

10. ELApqALpLq

11. ETApqATpTq

12. EMKpqKMpNq

13. ELKpqKLpLq

14. ETKpqKTpTq.

T X = il for any wff X. Also, under C , , M X = L X = T X = X for any wff X .

This together with the semantical connection between Q and K and 3 and A

accounts essentially for 3-8. Concerning 1 and 2 we also have in S i :

15. ENApqKNpNq and 16. ENKpqANpNq.

The other main reason why the results hold in 4.1 is that the modal functors, although many-valued in S*S, are nevertheless truth-functional operators.

I n recent modal predicate logics, the BARCAN

formula (and related ones) has

been a focal point of interest (e.g. [6] Ch. 10). The BARCAN

formula in our notation

is CVxLPxLQxPx,and it is a theorem in Psi. The contemporary interest in the

BARCAN

formula has been connected with an explication of some older distinctions,

namely modality de dicto and modality de re. I n 3-8, 4.1 for example, the RHS

of the equivalences are said to express a modality de dicto and the LHS of these

equivalences are said t o express a modality de re ([el p. 183). HUGHESand CRESSWELL also note that VON WRIGHThas suggested that in a satisfactory modal

predicate logic all modalities de re would be eliminable in favour of of modalities

de dicto. For the modal predicate logics based on systems like T , S 4 and S 5 , however, this property would seem to be an elusive one. We have for PS*S, as an immediate corollary to PNF, 4.1 that every modality de re is equivalent in Psi to

a modality de dicto.

Q 5. The Grosseteste Algebra of Sets GS*S

Before proceeding to the algebra GS*S we look first a t the modal propositional

logic associated with it, S*S. I n the next section we introduce two formal operators

into S*S, W and r, as these are needed for algebraic formulations.

Considering the tableaux rules for S (the propositional part of PS 5 2) we introduce two modal operators W and r with the following rules added to the S-t)ableaux

rules.

BrX

TIWX FlWX

I1W.X

TZWX

S N W N X T I X FIX I1X T , X ( F Z X .

---

(Signed wff of the form F,WX will yield broken branches.) I n the semantics S* we

give W, r the truth-tables shown in the following tables, and we add the tables

18*

276

ROBERT L. WILSON

for M ,L and T,the absolute possibility, absolute necessity and absolute verum

operators respectively.

write reduction sets in MS, (S, with W ,r) as mG,(cf. [5]).

MS,: mG2 = ( p ,Np,wp,r p )

MS3: mG3= (p,Np,Mp,Lp,Tp,NIMp,NLp,,ZrTp,Wp,rp,,NWp,NTp,MWp,

Mrp , T W P ,Trp, L W P ,L o } .

The six mixed modalities always take the 6-values in the order t l t z , t l f z , i l t z ,

ill,, f l t z , f l f z . Comparing these mixed modalities with their counterparts in

ME*E [6], we see that these 6 values are the same in ME*E. The reduction sets

MSL ( k = 1 , 2 , 3 ) .

MS.,: mGl or mGz is a reduction set for MS4, but both are reducible. I n fact, all

the proper modalities are reducible. The set { p , Np} constitutes a set of irreducible

modalities in MS4, but does not give us a reduction set e.g. MS4 4 E p M W p and

MS, -i E N p M W p .

5.2. The Algebra of Sets GS*S: An Informal Account

The algebra of sets associated with the %valued propositional logic is of course

a Boolean algebra. The principle feature in our semantics S* is that we work with

a peculiar notion of a proposition. As for ME*E [5] our semantics S* is linked to

the GROSSETESTE

semantic formula. ROBERTGROSSETESTES

[7] notion of truth as

adequation of thing t o the understanding consists of two parts, because there

are two qualitatively different kinds of adequation. I n the semantics S* (and the

transcendental logics generally) these distinctions are explicated as the I Jative

aspect (truth under the relative category i.e. C1-truth) and the absolute aspect

(truth under the absolute category i.e. Cz-truth).I n S*,under C1, propositions

can be C,-true or C,-false or C1-indeterminate and under C z , propositions can be

Cz-true or C2-false. Thus in particular our set theoretic statements will be 3-valued,

under G I , and %valued under Cz.

Recent workers in modal logic have also been interested in algebraic interpretations of modal logics. A significant contributor (and one of the initiators of our

subject in recent t,imes) to this end is C. I. IAEWIS [9]. The importance LEWIS

attaches both to the question of modal logic as a universally valid logic and the

related problem of an algebra of sets as a universally valid algebra is noteworthy

in [9] and particularly in his Appendix 111:Final Kote on System S 2 . We do not

discuss LEWISScontributions here but merely note two important differences between the LEWIS Systems and the transcendental logics:

277

presupposition of the synthetic/analytic division of propositions. I n the transcendental logics we do not link the semantics of possibility and necessity with this

division of propositions, but rather with the semantic categories Cl and C2.

2. Recent semantical analyses of the LEWISSystems S2-S5 [12] indicate that

these systems presuppose alternative possible worlds i.e. many worlds but still

only one logical aspect. For S*S and [I] generally, we presuppose only one world,

but two logical aspects. These latter two features are also seen in PS*S above (i.e.

in PS we presuppose only one class of predicates, and one class of individuals, but

in the semantics PS* two logical aspects).

The GROSSETESTEalgebra of sets can be presented informally by making the

following translations from MS*S to GS*S :

propositional variables p , q , T , . . . -+ variables for sets a , 6 , c , . . .

functors N , A , K + operations on sets N , v, n

functors C, E -+ relations between sets c ,=

modal functors M , L, T , W, r + modal operations on sets 01,01, 0 1 , (I., O2

semantic categories Cl , C, + semantic categories C, , C,

MSi-provable wff + GSi-theorems of sets, i = 1 , 2, 3,4.

referred to them as non-modal. Strictly speaking, since the logic is 3-valued under

C, , and 2-valued under C2, then these functors should perhaps also be referred t o

as modal ones. (By contrast in ME*E, E*E, the functors N , C, A , K , E can be

referred t o as strictly non-modal.) I n GS*S then, under C1 i.e. in GSl, we work

in a three-valued logic and so , V, n, c ,= , do not conform to Boolean semantics.

I n GS, i.e. under C,, we work in a 2-valued logic and so -, v, A , c ,=, take on

a Boolean meaning. We turn to the modal operations on sets 01,01,0 1 , 0 2 , 0 2 .

I n Boolean algebra the universal set U corresponds to statements in 2-valued logic

which are always true and the empty set E to statements in 2-valued logic which

are always false . I n GS*S, under C, , as well as U1 and E l , we will also have a new

creature - the indeterminate set IT1, which corresponds to statements in the

6-valued MS*S which are always Cl-indeterminate. I n GS*S, under C,, we will

just have the Boolean situation: the universal set U2 and the empty set E 2 . We

now discuss how these sets are accomodated in each sub-algebra GSi by means of

these modal operations :

N

I n the logic MS1, 5.1 the irreducible proper modalities are M p , Lp and T p .

ula

I n GSl, O l a = U 1 ,

= El and Ola = Il for every set a . Also

0 , a = O z a = a for every set a .

In MS, the proper irreducible modalities are Wp and r p . I n GS, &a = 11,

D 2 a = E,, O,a = O l a = Ola = a for any set a .

I n the logic S*S, the S,-tautology defining a n always true statement is

a derived one. Likewise in GS,, a sct thcorctie statcmcnt is a GS,-thcorcm

if it is a GS1-theorem and a GSz-theorem. I n GS3, the irreducible modal

operations are

01, 01, 0 1 , -01, -01,

0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 .

-01,

0 2 , 0 2 , -02,

- 0 2 ,

0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 , 0 1 0 2 ,

278

ROBERT L. WILSON

When we ask the meaning of a hybrid set like Ol&a in GS3 we can say

that, under C,, i.e. in GS1, O I O z a= O l a = I , the indeterminate set, and

under C2, i.e. in GSz, OIOza = O z a = Uz the universal set.

GSI: Like GS3, a set theoretic statement is a GS4-theorem if it is a GS1-theorem

or a GS2-theorem. (The feature of note is that the sub-logic MS4 is formally

inconsistent w.r.t. the functor N . ) If we return now to the semantics in GS1.

L4 statement x is a member of a set a is written as x E a and is C1-true,

C1-false or C1-indeterminate ( t , , f l or i l ) in GS:. For the complement - :

sE

NU

is t ,

iff

xEa if

fl

xE N U is f l iff x E a is tl

xE -a is i, iff x E a is i,.

For hhe operation of intersection n (Polish notation except for relations) :

xEn a b is f l iff x E a is f l or x C b is f l

x E n a b is i, iff xE a is t , and x C b is il, or xE a is i,

and xE6 is t l , or x E a is i l and xEb is i,.

For the relation c,

set inclusion, we have:

a c b

iff

If x E a then x E b.

a = b

iff

some features of each of the sub-algebras GSi. Rejected theorems are indicated

by *. I n some laws we make use of functorial variables. V denotes 01,U1,

O1, O2

or n2.v1 denotes 0, 0,

or o1and v2 denotes o2 or n z .I n laws involving

V , v1 or vz we replace these uniformly throughout by an appropriate modal

operator. I n these laws a , b , c denote arbitary sets.

A s s o c i a t i v e L a w s (v,

1. u a

bc

2. n a n bc

= vvabc

Distributive Laws

3. u a

n).

5. u a b = u b a

nnabe

(w, n ) .

bc = n u a b W a c

Commutative Laws

(w,

4. n a v be

= nab

ac.

-1.

6. n a b = n b a .

7. ~ w a =

b nNa

8. - n a b = u - a -

D i s t r i b u t i v e L a w s of M o d a l O p e r a t i o n s o v e r

10. V u a b = w V a V b

11. V n a b =

nva V b .

= a.

9.

b

u

and

n.

279

C o m m u t a t i v e Law f o r Modal O p e r a t i o n s .

12. VlV2U =

V2VlU.

L a w s of A b s o r p t i o n .

14. u a Ola = a

17. ~ a O =~ 0a2 a

15. n u O l a = a

18. ~a Oza = Oza

19. nuO2a = a

20. n u 0 2 a = Oza

21. u a O ~ O ~

= b0 1 0 2 c

22. uu 0 1 O 2 b = a

23. n u 0 1 0 2 b = a

24.

Ola

Ola = Ola

13. u a O l a

16.

*U

OiU2b

010~~-

Some Relations.

25. u c OiOzb

26. O1Ozac b

27. a c O l a

28. Ola

29. Ola c O l a

30. Ola c o l a

31. a c 0 2 a

32. U 2 a c a .

L a w s of C o m p l e m e n t s w i t h Modal O p e r a t i o n s .

33.

34.

O l U = 01-a

DlU =

35. - O l a

01-a

36. - 0 2 a = 0 2 - a

37. - 0 2 a = 0 2 - a

40. -0iOza =

38.

01-a

-olo2a= n1o2b

0102b.

S o m e R e d u c t i o n Laws.

41. V V a = V a

42.

4O I U

0101~

GSI:

44. O2a = u

47. n 1 V a = a l a

45. u2a = a

46. O l V a = O ~ U

48. 0 1 V a = O ~ U 49. a c Olb

50. O1a c b

51.

53. - o l a = Olb

54. - O l a

56*. n u

a =

66.

0101~

=

Ola 57*. a

GS2: 59. V l a a

62. a c Ozb

65. O z a = n b - b

G&:

c ~O1b

O ~c

U Olb

52.

O1b

Ola

=

55*. u a

58*.

a = Ola

Ola c a.

60. OzVa = O ~ U

61. n 2 V a

63. O2b c u

64. O ~ U u b

68. O i O i a

Oia

Ola

69. OIOla = O l a

67. OiOia

Ola

70. 0 2 0 2 a = O2a

73.

020102a

U201b

75. o z O l U 2 a= o201b

76. OzOiOza

OzOib

77. OzOlOza

80. 0 1 0 2 a c 0 1 0 2 b .

In GS3, O 1 0 2 aand ~

respectiveIy .

= O20lb

71. n20za

= n2a

n20102a

74.

= 0

O2Olb

1

~ are2 our

b hybrid universal set and empty set

280

GS,:

ROBERT L. WILSON

84.

&a = a

87. n a

=~

83. Ola = a

82. O l a = a

81.

85.

0 2 a= a

86. a c " 6

a cb

90. - O z a = 0 2 a

91. a z a = 0 2 a

93. O l a = -Ola

94*. a = - 0 l a

95*. If a = b and b

c then a

92. a = O l a

= C.

97. wa

c Olb

99*. Olb = w a

98. Olb c Wa

loo*.

Ola

a.

Oza.

References

[I] WILSON,R. L., The modal predicate logics PF*F. Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic (KDJ)

(forthcoming).

[2] WILSON,R. L., On some modal logics related to the L-modal system. Notre Dame a. of

Formal Logic (NDJ) (forthcoming).

[3] SMULLYAN,

R. M., First-Order Logic. Berlin-Heidelberg-New

York 1968.

[4] SLUPECRI,J., The Full Three-Valued Propositional Logic. In [lo].

[5] WILSON,R. L., The nine-valued modal logic ME*E. This Zeitschr. 20 (1974), 381-288.

[GI HUGHES,

G. E., and M. J. CRESSWELL.

An Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen 1968.

[7] GROSSETESTE,

R., On Truth. Selections from Medieval Philosophers, Vol. I, Chicago 1929.

[8] MCKEON,R., Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Vol. I, Chicago 1929.

[9] LEWIS, C. I.. and C. H. LANGFORD,

Symbolic Logic. 2nd edition, Dover 1959.

[lo] MCCALL,S., (Editor) Polish Logic 1920-1939; Oxford 1967.

[11] BOOLE,G., An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. London 1554; reprinted, Chicago

1916.

[12] RRIPRE, S.,Semantical analysis of modal logics I, Normal propositional calculi. This

Zeitschr. 9 (19631, 67-96.

- Avicenna Daneshnameh Part 1: LOGICUploaded byIvan Bondarev
- ModalityUploaded byPietro Viviani
- rodin-docUploaded bymarketcipher
- Fine K. Aristotle’s Megarian Manoeuvres 2011.pdfUploaded byekindedeoglu4913
- Artificial IntelligenceUploaded byGurpreet Singh
- PhilosophyUploaded byAnonymous Cw1DGmRf
- PHIL 132-Introduction to Logic-M. Shabbir AhsenUploaded byAhsan Saeed
- Carnap Logical Foundations of ProbabilityUploaded byJavier Benavides
- Rr310502 Artificial IntelligenceUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- C3Uploaded byAnalynBeronillaMontoya
- Van Heijenoort (1974) Subject and Predicate in Western LogicUploaded byAngela Jones
- 2225751 Wittgenstein Ludwig TractatusUploaded byzexmaster2
- IPTSTS 080 - Relational Syllogisms and the History of Arabic Logic, 900-1900.pdfUploaded byRes Arabica Studiosus
- The Dretske–Tooley–Armstrong Theory of Natural Laws and the Inference ProblemUploaded byTeodorCalinoiu
- Rationality and the Mind in Early Buddhism_Hoffman_1987Uploaded byRobert Lu
- Buss Thesis OCRUploaded byKarl Andersson
- Tgs BibliografiUploaded byRomadhoni
- BCG Case InterviewUploaded byLucky Yoh
- 2008 Must Stay StrongUploaded byindiigenais
- Salt 18 HaidaUploaded bydongpc1
- Assignment 3 African American Article Bias Critique Assignment SheetUploaded byAassim Farooq
- Achille C. Varzi, Words and Objects. Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, New York.pdfUploaded byVictor Maia
- ANDRES LOGIC CH6.pptxUploaded byprop andreoms
- ww2claims.pdfUploaded byLeah Amaro
- CORCIL.pdfUploaded byGiovani Santos
- Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solving: From Theory to PracticeUploaded bymigg_g
- 2b COM-20 Eff Mil Writing LDEUploaded byShahriar Jabed Chowdhury
- FRW Lecture 8Uploaded byAerGretra
- Lecture 1- 5Uploaded byJosah Carla Carbungco Macaraig
- lecture3fuzzylogic.pptUploaded byThiaga Rajan

- Arab AstronomyUploaded bynamename99999
- Nature Volume 479 issue 7372 2011 [doi 10.1038%2F479171a] Livio, Mario -- Lost in translation- Mystery of the missing text solved.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Volume 49 issue 1986 [doi 10.2307%2F751297] Backus, Irena -- John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa- Translations by Burgundio (115354), Grosseteste (12354.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- New Scientist Volume 213 issue 2855 2012 [doi 10.1016%2FS0262-4079%2812%2960645-9] Brooks, Michael -- The Grosseteste code.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Synthese Volume 40 issue 1 1979 [doi 10.1007%2Fbf00413947] Eileen F. Serene -- Robert Grosseteste on induction and demonstrative science.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Architectural Theory Review Volume 9 issue 1 2004 [doi 10.1080%2F13264820409478503] Temple, Nicholas -- The Bishop's Eye- Robert Grosseteste and the Architecture of Light.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- [doi 10.1017%2FS0017816000024378] J. C. Russell -- Phases of Grosseteste's Intellectual Life.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- Archive for History of Exact Sciences Volume 6 issue 3 1970 [doi 10.2307%2F41133302] Bruce S. Eastwood -- Metaphysical Derivations of a Law of Refraction- Damianos and Grosseteste.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- A Medieval Multiverse - Mathematical Modelling of the 13th Century Universe of.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- 507161 AUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- Isis Volume 81 issue 4 1990 [doi 10.2307%2F233811] Edgar S. Laird -- Robert Grosseteste, Albumasar, and Medieval Tidal Theory.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- The Journal of Theological Studies Volume 37 issue 1 1986 [doi 10.1093%2Fjts%2F37.1.91] GOERING, JOSEPH -- THE DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIE FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ROBERT GROSSETESTE.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- 452 17 de Abril 2008 Medieval MindUploaded byJavier López González
- The Heythrop Journal Volume 47 issue 4 2006 [doi 10.1111%2Fj.1468-2265.2006.00301_13.x] R. N. Swanson -- Poetry Does Theology- Chaucer, Grosseteste, and the PEARL-Poet By Jim Rhodes.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Osiris Volume 11 issue 1954 [doi 10.2307%2F301673] Carl B. Boyer -- Robert Grosseteste on the Rainbow.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- Speculum Volume 43 issue 2 1968 [doi 10.2307%2F2855937] Bruce S. Eastwood -- Mediaeval Empiricism- The Case of Grosseteste's Optics.pdfUploaded byGreg O'Ruffus
- Our latest scientific re...pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- The Heythrop Journal Volume 52 issue 3 2011 [doi 10.1111%2Fj.1468-2265.2010.00580.x] DANIEL P. HORAN -- HOW ORIGINAL WAS SCOTUS ON THE INCARNATION RECONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE ABSOLUTE PREDESTINAT.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Isis Volume 80 issue 1 1989 [doi 10.2307%2F234345] Richard C. Dales -- The Computistical Works Ascribed to Robert Grosseteste.pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Nature Volume 173 issue 4395 1954 [doi 10.1038%2F173138a0] -- Grosseteste and Medieval Science.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Journal of the History of Ideas Volume 28 issue 3 1967 [doi 10.2307%2F2708626] Bruce S. Eastwood -- Grosseteste's Quantitative Law of Refraction- A Chapter in the History of Non-Experimental Science.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Isis Volume 86 issue 4 1995 [doi 10.2307%2F235377] Jennifer Moreton -- Before Grosseteste- Roger of Hereford and Calendar Reform in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century England.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Journal of the History of Philosophy Volume 48 issue 2 2010 [doi 10.1353%2Fhph.0.0207] Christina Van Dyke, -- The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth- Robert Grosseteste on Universals (a.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Science Volume 119 issue 3104 1954 [doi 10.1126%2Fscience.119.3104.901-a] ROLLER, D. H. D. -- Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science, 1100-1700. A. C. Crombie, Oxford Univ. Press, .pdfUploaded byRob Grosseteste
- Isis Volume 52 issue 3 1961 [doi 10.2307%2F228079] Richard C. Dales -- Robert Grosseteste's Scientific Works.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Isis Volume 55 issue 3 1964 [doi 10.2307%2F228576] E. G. R. Taylor -- Robert Grosseteste as an Observer.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Isis Volume 19 issue 1 1933 [doi 10.2307%2F225185] S. Harrison Thomson -- The Text of Grosseteste's De Cometis.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Harvard Theological Review Volume 48 issue 03 1955 [doi 10.1017%2FS0017816000025177] Russell, Josiah Cox -- Some Notes upon the Career of Robert Grosseteste.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector
- Isis Volume 50 issue 4 1959 [doi 10.2307%2F226431] Colin M. Turbayne -- Grosseteste and an Ancient Optical Principle.pdfUploaded byRoberti Grossetestis Lector

- Using Z-specification Refinement and ProofUploaded byapi-3701002
- CHP-2-LOGIC(Artificial Intelligence)Uploaded bynasirhamidon
- Lecture 01 - Logic of Propositions and Predicates (Schuller's Geometric Anatomy of Theoretical Physics)Uploaded bySimon Rea
- Leg Tech Syllabus-1Uploaded byAyra Arcilla
- Theory of Computer ScienceUploaded bySaurabh Deshmukh
- Relational Logic by Michael Genesereth 2016Uploaded byadam
- lec1Uploaded byssambangi555
- Gödel.Kurt..(by Hao Kim) - Complete Proofs of Godel Incompleteness TheoremsUploaded byMustafa Galois
- Absolute Contradiction Dialetheism and RevengeUploaded byKathryn Hopkins
- PE1Uploaded bymca.ambika6100
- Logica IntuitivaUploaded byMarcaquinho Abreu
- AssignmentUploaded bymrahsanali
- 244970380-Legal-Technique-and-Logic-Reviewer-SIENNA-FLORES.pdfUploaded bycashielle arellano
- Problems IUploaded byjoe b
- Chapter10Uploaded byAnupam Banerjee
- RestrictedSatisfiabilityProblem.pptUploaded byJolene Alford
- Chapter 10 - Propositional Logic - For StudentsUploaded byAmy Trang
- Prover9 IntroUploaded byeagle-2
- Notes Chapter03Uploaded byNikko106
- mathematical reasoningUploaded byKunal Joshi
- Schurz - Carnap Modal LogicUploaded byapi-3702097
- SyllogismUploaded byAngela Louise Sabaoan
- solns2.pdfUploaded byavi_weber
- Discrete MathematicsUploaded byLarry Genova Rico
- Discrete MathematicsUploaded byHari Aakash
- 3 FallaciesUploaded byvaniuniu
- Ch7Uploaded byNisha Shrestha
- hw01Uploaded byXavier
- 4CC503_Lec4_week8Uploaded byAnonymous bk7we8
- Artificial IntelligenceUploaded byBhuvaneshAngelsAngels