On 5/9/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think deontic logic might be closer,
Closer than what to what?
Closer than other modal logics to what we need.
> but it axiomatizes the concept
> that "ought implies can".
It's a decent axiom, one which we used to have in the ruleset, but
there's nothing that requires a deontic logic to include it as an
axiom.
Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal
logics with axiom D: O(A) -> P(A).
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
