X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=topics%2Fweek10_gsv.mdwn;h=8afe744e0a72987521fc0f3d332d66640af0aaf7;hp=96786ca3650de649b95c6a8be2c99bfea5848561;hb=61eb31f3b8a8495ffd02ece411ad1699fc3e31ef;hpb=feed9f614fd5e90dc05320b7ae242877665ae4ff diff --git a/topics/week10_gsv.mdwn b/topics/week10_gsv.mdwn index 96786ca3..8afe744e 100644 --- a/topics/week10_gsv.mdwn +++ b/topics/week10_gsv.mdwn @@ -116,15 +116,15 @@ Compute the following: 1. {(w,g)}[∃x.man(x)] - = {(w,g[n->a])}[man(x)] ++ {(w,g[n->b])}[man(x)] - ++ {(w,g[n->c])}[man(x)] - = {} ++ {(w,g[n->b])} ++ {(w,g[n->c])} - = {(w,g[n->a]),(w,g[n->b]),(w,g[n->c])} + = {(w,g[x->a])}[man(x)] ++ {(w,g[x->b])}[man(x)] + ++ {(w,g[x->c])}[man(x)] + = {} ++ {(w,g[x->b])} ++ {(w,g[x->c])} + = {(w,g[x->a]),(w,g[x->b]),(w,g[x->c])} -- Bob and Carl are men 2. {(w,g)}[∃x.woman(x)] 3. {(w,g)}[∃x∃y.man(x) and man(y)] - 4. {(w,n,r,g)}[∃x∃y.x=y] + 4. {(w,g)}[∃x∃y.x=y] Running the [[code|code/gsv.ml]] gives the answers. @@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ two worlds. --------------- --------------- w: a true a false b false b true - c true c false + c false c false w': a false a false b false b false @@ -412,12 +412,10 @@ Let's see how this works out in detail. -- existential introduces new peg - = ( {(w,g[x->a])}[closet(x)] - ++ {(w,g[x->b])}[closet(x)] - ++ {(w,g[x->c])}[closet(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->a])}[closet(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->b])}[closet(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->c])}[closet(x)])[◊guilty(x)] + = ( {(w,g[x->a]), (w',g[x->a])}[closet(x)] + ++ {(w,g[x->b]), (w',g[x->b])}[closet(x)] + ++ {(w,g[x->c]), (w',g[x->c])}[closet(x)] + )[◊guilty(x)] -- only possibilities in which x is in the closet survive -- the first update @@ -437,12 +435,9 @@ Now we consider the second half: {(w,g), (w',g)}[∃x(closet(x) & ◊guilty(x))] - = {(w,g[x->a])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] - ++ {(w,g[x->b])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] - ++ {(w,g[x->c])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->a])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->b])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] - ++ {(w',g[x->c])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] + = {(w,g[x->a]), (w',g[x->a])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] + ++ {(w,g[x->b]), (w',g[x->b])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] + ++ {(w,g[x->c]), (w',g[x->c])}[closet(x)][◊guilty(x)] -- filter out possibilities in which x is not in the closet -- and filter out possibilities in which x is not guilty @@ -451,10 +446,10 @@ Now we consider the second half: = {(w',g[x->c])} -The result is different. Fewer possibilities remain. We have one of -the possible worlds (w is ruled out), and we have ruled out possible -discourses (x cannot refer to Alice). So the second formula is more -informative. +The result is different. Fewer possibilities remain. We have +eliminated one of the possible worlds (w is ruled out), and we have +eliminated one of the possible discourses (x cannot refer to Alice). +So the second formula is more informative. One of main conclusions of GSV is that in the presence of modality, the hallmark of dynamic treatments--that existentials bind outside of