[Iris-Club] Excluded middle leads to inconsistency
jung at mpi-sws.org
Wed May 3 10:58:53 CEST 2017
Well, but it's not like we know the canonical set of rules we will get
in the presence of box without * elimination. For example, it seems
likely that we will *not* have "box P |- P". (However, we will have
"box P |- P * box P".) So if you use box in linear Iris, you better
state which rules you use.
I think however that "True |- box True" is something we do get;
otherwise it'll be hard to prove anything under the box...
On 03.05.2017 10:50, Derek Dreyer wrote:
> This is why I said in my original mail that I'm not sure how my proof
> plays out in the absence of box.
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Derek Dreyer <dreyer at mpi-sws.org> wrote:
>> You could replace the True at the beginning with emp.
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Derek Dreyer <dreyer at mpi-sws.org> wrote:
>>> Yes. This is exactly why I put the Box there.
>>> Where did I use True |- Box(True)?
>>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Aleš Bizjak <abizjak at cs.au.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 03 May 2017, at 10:41:30, Ralf Jung wrote:
>>>>> Actually I thought "not P := P -> False", no box involved.
>>>> Isn't Derek's P defined as P(x) = □(x ↦ 0 ∨ ¬(x ↦ 0)) = □(x ↦ 0) ∨ □(¬ x ↦ 0)?
>>>> -- Aleš
>>>> iris-club at lists.mpi-sws.org - Mailing List for the Iris Logic
>>>> Management: https://lists.mpi-sws.org/listinfo/iris-club
>>>> Unsubscribe: iris-club-unsubscribe at lists.mpi-sws.org
More information about the Iris-Club