On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Consider the following line of reasoning. Let p be the proposition > "Ronald was born in New York." From p, we can infer q: Ronald was born > in the United States.
> From q, we can infer r: It is possible that Ronald > was born in New Jersey. That's not an inference from q. Prior to learning q, r was the description of our state of knowledge regarding whether Ronald was born in New Jersey, and learning q does not change this. (At least not if your description of your state of knowledge is non-quantitative as presented here.) > On the other hand, from p we can infer s: It is > not possible that Ronald was born in New Jersey. We have arrived at a > contradiction. What is wrong? Note: To answer the question, familiarity > with modal logic is not needed. Nothing is wrong. On learning p our state of knowledge changes. From p and q our inference is different than from q alone. There is no paradox - the only way a problem will arise is if you use a reasoning framework that cannot accommodate the way beliefs change as knowledge is added. Konrad _______________________________________________ uai mailing list uai@ENGR.ORST.EDU https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/uai
