STRICT IMPLICATION, ENTAILMENT, AND MODAL ITERATION (1955)

Author(s):  
ALFONS KEUPINK ◽  
SANFORD SHIEH
Keyword(s):  
1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Cresswell

I have argued in [1] that a concept bearing some resemblance to ‘p is the answer to d’ (p a proposition and d a question) can be defined wherever d has the form,‘For which a's is it the case that A (a)?’ (Qa)A(a)where a is a variable and A a wff containing a. To say that p is the true and complete answer to (Qa)A(a) is expressed as saying that p is logically equivalent to the true conjunction of A(a) or ~A(a) for each a. It is defined as;Such a concept of answer is like Belnap's [2] direct true answer to a complete list question, or like Harrah's use [3] (p. 43) of the notion of a state description. The main difference between my approach and that of Belnap and Harrah is that while they are concerned to develop a formal metalanguage for discussion of questions and answers I am concerned to express, as far as possible in existing systems, certain interrogative statements; in particular statements of the form ‘— is the (an) answer to —’.While the account in [1] does give a formal analysis of one ‘answer’ concept there are respects in which it is inadequate.1. Since it uses entailment (or strict implication) to define the relation between p the answer and d the question we can shew that if p is the answer to d and q is logically equivalent to p then q is the answer to d.


1934 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 518 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Chenoweth McKinsey

1975 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Curley
Keyword(s):  

1996 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kirk
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document