From: Chris Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 19:18:06 +0000 (-0400) Subject: edits X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=fd2cb06c9e18732a6fbbf20da0b2f92dc981a5db edits --- diff --git a/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn b/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn index d6175942..f0336123 100644 --- a/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn +++ b/topics/_week10_gsv.mdwn @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ On the epistemic side, GSV aim to account for asymmetries such as It might be raining. It's not raining. #It's not raining. It might be raining. -## Basics +## Two-part assignment functions There are a lot of formal details in the paper in advance of the empirical discussion. Here are the ones that matter for our purposes: @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ that asserting *might* requires that the prejacent be undecided, you will have to consider an update rule for the diamond on which update with the prejacent and its negation must both be non-empty. -## Binding +## Order and binding The GSV fragment differs from the DPL and the DMG dynamic semantics in important details. Nevertheless, it has more or less the same things @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ object that it can refer to. Here is what GSV say: A term is an identifier per se if no mattter what the information state is, it cannot fail to decie what the denotation of the term is. -## Why articulate the mapping from variables to objects into two parts? +## Why have a two-part assignment function? In the current system, variables are associated with values in two steps.