projects
/
lambda.git
/ commitdiff
commit
grep
author
committer
pickaxe
?
search:
re
summary
|
shortlog
|
log
|
commit
| commitdiff |
tree
raw
|
patch
|
inline
| side by side (parent:
a2294b4
)
edits
author
Chris
<chris.barker@nyu.edu>
Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:55:43 +0000
(12:55 -0400)
committer
Chris
<chris.barker@nyu.edu>
Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:55:43 +0000
(12:55 -0400)
topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
patch
|
blob
|
history
diff --git
a/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
b/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
index
ca85c30
..
b956d6c
100644
(file)
--- a/
topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
+++ b/
topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn
@@
-228,10
+228,11
@@
for grabs. What is important for our purposes is to get clear on how
the fragment behaves with respect to these sentences.
We'll start with an infostate containing two possibilities. In one
the fragment behaves with respect to these sentences.
We'll start with an infostate containing two possibilities. In one
-possibility (w1), Alice is hungry; in the other (w2), she is not.
+possibility, Alice is hungry (call this possibility "hungry"); in the
+other, she is not (call it "full").
-
= {(w1,n,r,g), (w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice isn't hungry][Alice might be hungry]
- = {
(w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice might be hungry]
+
{hungry, full
}[Alice isn't hungry][Alice might be hungry]
+ = {
full
}[Alice might be hungry]
= {}
As usual in dynamic theories, a sequence of sentences is treated as if
= {}
As usual in dynamic theories, a sequence of sentences is treated as if
@@
-243,7
+244,7
@@
Subsequent update with *Alice might be hungry* depends on the result
of updating with the prejacent, *Alice is hungry*. Let's do that side
calculation:
of updating with the prejacent, *Alice is hungry*. Let's do that side
calculation:
- {
(w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice is hungry]
+ {
full
}[Alice is hungry]
= {}
Because the only possibility in the information state is one in which
= {}
Because the only possibility in the information state is one in which
@@
-266,15
+267,15
@@
In contrast, consider the sentences in the opposite order:
We'll start with the same two possibilities.
We'll start with the same two possibilities.
- = {
(w1,n,r,g), (w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice might be hungry][Alice isn't hungry]
- = {
(w1,n,r,g), (w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice isn't hungry]
- = {
(w2,n,r,g)
}
+ = {
hungry, full
}[Alice might be hungry][Alice isn't hungry]
+ = {
hungry, full
}[Alice isn't hungry]
+ = {
full
}
Update with *Alice might be hungry* depends on the result of updating
with the prejacent, *Alice is hungry*. Here's the side calculation:
Update with *Alice might be hungry* depends on the result of updating
with the prejacent, *Alice is hungry*. Here's the side calculation:
- {
(w1,n,r,g), (w2,n,r,g)
}[Alice is hungry]
- = {
(w1,n,r,g)
}
+ {
hungry, full
}[Alice is hungry]
+ = {
hungry
}
Since this update is non-empty, all of the original possibilities
survive update with *Alice might be hungry*. By now it should be
Since this update is non-empty, all of the original possibilities
survive update with *Alice might be hungry*. By now it should be