Timeline for Can three valued logic serve as an adequate basis for a (nontraditional) modal logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2014 at 21:00 | comment | added | user5172 | Write a paper elaborating the semantics, proving the system consistent and complete, and showing how it solves an important problem. Then submit it to a journal. I would think the Journal of Philosophical Logic or the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic would be interested. If you can publish either of those places, people will take your ideas seriously. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | Confutus | My experience has been that the required semantics are different enough from established conventions that the system doesn't get more than a casual glance by experts, who then tend to dismiss it as uninteresting or unimportant, fail to investigate it, and never get to see for themselves how many long-standing controversies in logic it addresses and clarifies. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 19:08 | comment | added | user5172 | I mean, you can do it that way too - - the point is that you want a system that is both syntactically and semantically correct. Usually it's easier to come up with the semantics first IMO, but your mileage may vary. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 18:19 | comment | added | Confutus | I seem to have gone about it backwards: first finding valid rules of inference, then finding/creating an interpretation consistent with them. | |
| Mar 4, 2014 at 10:49 | history | answered | user5172 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |