mja

stained glass is a perfect medium for him. strange that the effect is so perfect in a medieval context. hard to find any stained glass in modern churches, alas.

ok, then, your father will buy OUP. is that better for you??

saw what you did there.

seems closer to a logical truth..

You can surely get from <>~A —> ~T to [ ]A. And if you have [ ]~A, then [ ]~A —> (<>~A —>~T).

OMG I LOVE THIS‼️ I Absolutely Love Governor Gavin Newsom‼️
#GavinNewsomForPresident2028

💯💥👇🏼🫶🏼💯💙🇺🇸💪🏼

interesting. but closer to hagiography than biography.

the book doubles (sometimes singles) as a blunt instrument.

contradictions, incoherence, circular reasoning, false claims and all in less than 200 pp. who knew Chomsky was such a bloody dolt…

that’s pretty young to discover the all purpose excuse.

Just use points or really anything else you like. Nothing wrong with that. You can do all the logic you like, if that’s what you want to do.

ICYMI, Chellas has a nice discussion of K4 (p. 131ff) in his _Modal Logic_ anggtwu.net/tmp/chellas_...

frames for K4 are not reflexive, right? and there’s your prob.

only the obviously fake ones. that puppy is being trained to sit. he’s not watching and responding to the tv. he’s responding to treats. the rest is AI.

that’s AI… pretty sure

fwiw, it’s available online these days. Segerberg’s essay, that is, in all of its 1970’s typescript glory

unfortunately, he calls everything venus: planets, mosquitoes…

only a paul grice could figure out all of the conversational implications.

Picture of the Milky Way over Deadvlei in Namibia

If this is an actual photograph and not AI, it is truly amazing. Milky Way over Deadvlei in Namibia. Credits: Stefan Liebermann

one difference. generally, consequences of minor mistakes in chess are so much worse than those for minor mistakes in research.

The consequences are obviously implausible if anyone on K^n is also on K^n+1.

And KK is a logical question. It will fall out of arguments for a strong logic of knowledge. Are these the same sorts of evidence? Doesn’t seem like it.

It seems false for iterated cases of necessity. To know whether something is necessary (say, [] existing) you need to know something about the nature of the object (if you will). Abstract objects (ao), e.g.,are prob. [] existing. But to know whether [][] ao, you need to know proper logic of [].

Also true for Plantingan realism that there are infinitely many worlds in which the same lyrics are being sung. But modal realists can also say that *there are* right now infinitely many (possible, nonactual) singers singing. That’s pretty cool. Plantingans can’t.

I want the last 10 seconds of my life back...

Trump really ought to stop lying, but obviously he can’t. So much for ought-can. Note: ought-can is not even a principle of agent evaluation, since Trump can’t stop lying, but is obviously blameworthy for it. QED.

any tonic wine with 20% ABV

that’s something richard lewis might have said..

putting it all together, hard job mrks create themselves.

finally. let’s also reaffirm the difference between harms and offenses. not every little offense to your sensibilities constitutes a harm.