User talk:Nahaj/K4 systems (Resolution)

This is a continuation of the "Modal Logic, et al." thread.

K4 systems (Resolution)

Ok, I've got a "resolution" of the discussion that used to be here on the modal logic system K4. [EJ said my personal (non-wikipedian) web page on the system K4 was "patent nonsense" even though I had lots of references for system basis given there. (Other facts have since been added.) He provided references for K4 being based on another set of axioms as proof I was wrong.] I assumed [wrongly] that since both bases were attested to by many books, it was yet another case of multiple axiom basis sets for the same logic. He (I assume) [wrongly] assumed that since the basis I listed wasn't the one he was used to, my page was nonsense.

Bottom line: There are two different systems called K4 (Not a very unusual state of affairs in Modal Logic, as [my pages] are there to document) And both systems have 100's of papers that reference them as K4.

The first system to use the name "K4" is a system (which contains S4) that was that published by Sobocinski. There are a family of related K systems (all based eventually on S4) that have had many references in the literature. These included K1 (also known as S4M), K1.1, K1.2, K2, K2.1, K3, K3.1, and Sobocinski's K4. It appears that in the late 1960's Sobocinski's numbering was the most common naming for these systems.

Later, the trend was towards naming systems by a concatenation of the names of the axioms. At that time some writers (apparently unaware that the name was already in use) used K4 to mean K plus the axiom "4". (Named "4" because it turns some systems into S4, but note that K4 does NOT include S4.) And they started their own set of systems from there, such as KW, K4.2W KE, KD4, etc. Since naming by axioms is cleaner, this naming convention won out. By the mid 1990's, K4 meaning the K+4 system was the most common (but no naming convention ever totally dies out.

Later, because naming systems after axioms is less likely to cause later confusion, some authors renamed Sobocinski's K4 with other names, including S4.4M and K4'. (And his system K1 as S4M, etc) Many systems such as KM (S4 based) and KH (K+4) based had no conflicts in the literature, and have kept their original names. When this discussion started I sent out letters to a number of people with published Modal Logic papers, and judging by the replies I got newer Modal Logicians are generally unaware with the historic naming problems.

This leads to the current situation (which I'm going to have to correct on my web pages). *sigh* some sytems of the K#.# sort are one, some the other. Which K4 cited in a paper is intended? Generally the age of the paper will tell you, but not always. (Particularly in the transition.) (: And what to do with the one paper that cites one of each? :)

So, I appologize for falsely assuming that since there were MANY papers citing each they must be different bases for the same system. [And I hope, but don't expect, for EJ to appologise for calling my pages "patent nonsense".]

So, I think this is resolved, and am in favor of moving the "Modal logic et al." section below into archives. What do you say EJ? Nahaj 01:41:42, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

This is your own talk page, just do whatever you feel like doing with it. I am glad that the confusion was finally resolved, and I appologise for losing patience and using rude words. -- EJ 15:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that in any summary of disagreement, both people deserve some say in how the final history reads. Nahaj 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good attitude, of course. I have no objections to the resolution, except that it would be nice to have a link to the archives here. Actually, I didn't even figure out where did you move the section, none of User_talk:Nahaj/Archive, User_talk:Nahaj/Archive1, or User_talk:Nahaj/Modal_logic_et_al. works. -- EJ 15:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to wikipedia, and still fighing it. They are (now) at User_talk:Nahaj/Modal_logic_et_al. Nahaj 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to change the original page making the claim that S4+axiom=K4 is patent nonsense? Nahaj 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing anything on article discussion pages is generally a bad idea. As the discussion moved here, I assumed it more appropriate to appologize here, but now I've added a comment on Talk:Provability logic as well, if it makes you happy. -- EJ 15:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, if people are directed to Provability logic by a search engine, they wouldn't automaticaly see anything here. Nahaj

I just noticed that you put my name in several places on your pages in connection with that "S4.4.1" thing. I really wonder what was the purpose, but in any case, I do not like the way you misrepresent my words. I never claimed that the name S4.4.1 exists in the literature, and in fact, I explicitely wrote that I have never seen it before. I have constructed the name according to the currently common conventions for naming new logics; you originally contested the convention, but finally accepted that it is widely used (the paragraph "Later, the trend was..." above). With hindsight, I formed the name wrongly, as the pieces from which it was built (Sobocinski's S4.4, McKinsey's S4.1) come from incompatible naming systems; the alternative S4.1.4 is even more unfortunate, as it clashes with a completely different logic (in the old naming convention). According to your sources mentioned above, the name S4.4M is actually used for the logic in the new naming convention, so why don't you just stick with this name, and forget about S4.4.1? I sincerely hope that this is just a misunderstanding on your part, rather than some kind of agenda against myself. -- EJ 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I quoted you exactly (I went back to the discussion and looked). Since I believe that the statements are going to show up in search engines forever, some people are going to look up the system in my pages. Given the mail I already get of the "why don't you list this system" or "why don't you list that system" flavor (from people that have googled something or other), it seems appropriate to list the system. While you did say you hadn't seen it in the literature, you never the less made specific claims about the systems in a publicly archived forum, and therefore added it to the literature (Wikipedia is, after all, an "archived public forum", indexed by major search engines). I don't remember you withdrawing your claims on systems S4.4.1 and S4.1.4 (although you did withdraw your claims about the "patent nonsense", and I then believe I removed all references to that from my web pages). I not sure what you believe that I have a "missunderstanding" about, could you clairify? As to "Some kind of agenda" against you, I don't see it. You made specific claims about named modal logic systems, which (to the best of my knowledge) you never withdrew, and I quoted you on them. If you withdraw your claims on the page, so that people with search engines would see it, I would be more than happy to remove all references to those systems from my pages. (Since in that case all need to list the system would go away. I take your statements above as a retraction of your claims, but people directed to the other page by a search engine are not going to see what appears on this page. Nahaj 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above you claim: "... you originally contested the convention, but finally accepted that it is widely used..." No, I did not. I contested your convention and claims. The new convention (Concatenating axiom names, giving names like KTB or EMC or K4) I don't have a problem with. Your stated convention (A claim of a specific axiom having a specific number, and adding a dot and that number to the logic name to give the name of the a logic with that axiom added) I contested, and still contest. Nahaj 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What??

Your explanation is ridiculous. In other cases, you insist on references to "specific books and articles", but in this one, you are satisfied with a half sentence in a casual discussion on a Wikipedia Talk page, which is supposed to contain controversies and unverified (or often just false) statements? I don't buy this.

Wikipedia pages are citable by many places... there are even journals that accept that as a citation. I thought they were "supposed to" contain contraversies about the topic. The S4.4.1 comments were an attack on my non-wikipedia pages, and there was not even any prior reference to K4 in the discussion. You led into it stating you knew it was off topic. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are citable and cited. Wikipedia talk pages are in no way a reliable source of information. Provide references to journal papers which cite Wikipedia Talk pages if you disagree. -- EJ 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you insist that I claim something which I explicitly denied to claim, and never actually intended to claim in the first place. What happened is really like this. You inserted a (then broken) link to your own pages in a Wikipedia article. This is considered bad behavior and breaking the rules. I could have just reverted the edit and forget about it; instead I took the trouble of commenting on it on the Talk page, rechecking the link later when it was available, and explaining why I still do not consider it appropriate for inclusion in the article. Then I made a mistake: I am naive, and therefore try to be helpful to people I don't know. I spotted a trivial error on your pages, and mentioned it so that you could improve your pages by correcting it. I didn't bother to chose words carefully, under the (false) assumption that you are willing to understand what I say; in particular, I shortened the description S4.4 + MS to S4.4.1. However, instead of the expected "Thanks for pointing this out, I've fixed it", you fired up a never-ending discussion, full of harsh words despite my attempts to calm it down. You tried to argue for the obviously wrong statement that S4.4+MS and the usual K4 define the same system, poining out to (naturally nonexistent) references in the literature, and calling a simple proof to the contrary as a "strawman argument". Besides, you tried to divert the discussion from the original topic by picking up the "name" S4.4.1 and pushing me to somehow "claim" it exists and to back it by (also naturally nonexistent) references. Finally, during a week I was away, you realized that you were wrong on the equivalence issue, due to confusing two systems with the same name. You corrected your pages, and wrote a summary of the facts here. Again naively, I assumed that you intended it as a compromise to close the discussion; for the sake of good will, I duly appologized for things you asked me to appologize. I have done more than enough on my part. It turned out that you are not willing to do anything on your part: not only you didn't even attempt to appologize for words like the "strawman argument" above, but you silently moved your view of the story to a place where I cannot respond (your own pages).

You claimed it, anybody can go to the provability logic top pages and see that. And they can also see no retraction there of that claim. "I shortened the description S4.4 + MS to S4.4.1" That is not a shortening of the description, that is a false claim. I remind you that (by your statement) you claims were off topic and that you were the one to bring up K4 with your attack, it isn't in the discussion prior to that.

"you didn't even attempt to appologize for words like the 'strawman argument' above" You're right. I appologize for that comment, and retract it. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to evidence my links were not broken. You are using something that (apparently) only you saw, and using it to claim bad wikipedia behaviour on my part. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to your own pages (or more general, any pages you are involved in) from a Wikipedia article is considered bad behavior. Basicly, it is a conflict of interests. And it is a real problem, there are too many people around who keep inserting links to their pages which have little to do with the content of the articles, and only serve to promote the external web pages. If you want to add a link to your pages in good intent, the proper procedure is to suggest the link at the Talk page, and wait for someone else to insert the link in the article (or to reject it).

Dropping Off topic remarks on an article page is bad behavior also. Insults are bad behavior. "Pot calling the kettle black." Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your pages were not available is only relevant because it prevented me to check whether the link is or isn't informative. And yes, whatever "evidence" you try to bring in, the link was unavailable at the time. I don't know why you consider everything I say as an attack, it is simply an information, I never claimed that the problem was directly on your server, or that you are responsible for it. It was not on my end either: I tried the link from two unrelated locations (Prague and Utrecht), so it is safe to assume that the network problem was outside Europe, and vice versa, that it affected other users from Europe, not just me. -- EJ 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this alleged inavailiabity of those pages forced you to start your derogatory comments without first having read the pages in question. I can see how you would feel that it was such a despartely important issue that checking the facts couldn't wait. 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your information that S4.4+MS was not K4, in the face of many references otherwise, isn't something to be thanked. You had references in hand at the time you made your claim. Proper academic form would be to provide some evidence why those references were wrong, or some evidence that I had missinterpreted them. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I finally assumed both systems, being well represented in the literature as K4, were different axiomatiztions of the same system (something I retracted (and appologized for)when I found it wrong.). Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You skipped the list of people you demanded I ask to bolster your claim. You already knew one person on the list (other than me) disagreed with your claim, so I don't see how that was even polite. By the way, did YOU ever find ANYONE on the list that supported your S4.4+MS not being K4 claim? Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I found the resolution I posted it, there was nothing of compromise about it. That, to the best of my knowledge, how academic discussions work. I even went back to the discussion and inserted comments that I was wrong in various places where I was. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"you silently moved your view of the story to a place where I cannot respond (your own pages) I was far from silent about it, this page has had a specific index item pointing people at it since before you made the comment. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is on my pages, *THAT* dialog happened HERE, one would expect it to be archived therefore on my pages. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I give, why can't you respond there? (If it is because you think people won't see it, then you are making my argument for me that retractions should be on the original page...) Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the dialog happened here, not on your personal pages at cc.utah.edu, where you recently put comments on the discussion. This is what I am complaining about, and what I meant by "your own pages" above. -- EJ 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the discussion is on my pages since I responced to you making the "patent nonsense" comment on the page where you made the claim. The only things left (as you well know) are the claims you made on those pages and won't retract. Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that my pages that you keep complaining about are not wikipedia pages, they are the Modal Logic pages I've been maintaining for many many years on my site. (And are referenced by many places and people.) I've never even mentioned K4 here other than in responce to your comments on my private non-wikipedia webpages. Nahaj

My patience is now really over, I no more believe that you are able or willing to behave in a civilized manner in this matter. I demand that you remove all references to me from your pages, and that you never touch my name again. If you do so, we may discuss how exactly do you expect me to "retract" a claim which I already retracted twice. If you, instead, decide to continue to act in a hostile way, it's your choice, and I can't help you. I can cope with somebody spreading slander about me, it is only a problem of your conscience. -- EJ 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm told you are confusing the English words "slander" and "libel". Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I find this bizarre. You make a claim in a public archived forum, which you refuse to withdraw from that forum , AND you complain that I quote you on it? Retract the claim on the provability logic page, and I'll stop quoting that claim. You started this endless discussion with your claim that my K4 page contained "patent nonsense". (Even though there is no mention of K4 prior to your attack.) You appologized for the "patent nonsense" claim there (although you didn't retract it) and so I stopped quoting you on it. I believed I have behaved in a civillized manner, I don't believe you have. Nahaj 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Which you refuse to withdraw from that forum": this is the same forum as the Talk page where the original sentence appeared, discussions can and regularly do move from one Wikipedia Talk page to another, and there are enough pointers on the original page to find the rest of the discussion for everybody who is interested in it.

The English phrase is ambigious. I intended to refer to the place you made the claim as the forum. I would have thought that obivious, but I can see how it could have been missinterpreted. Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original claims are on the Provability Logic talk page (which I would assume many see). Your "retraction" is on my talk page (which I have no real reason to believe anyone reads). Obviously, you can make the problem go away by just putting a retraction where you made the claim. Your decision to keep the discussion going instead is your choice. I don't see, if you really don't believe those claims any more, what is your objection is to placing a retraction there. Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"you complain that I quote you on it": your page currently contains "Emil Jerabek states..." and similar formulations, which would appear to a reader unfamiliar with this discussion that it is my opinion or position that there are such and such logics well-known under the names S4.4.1 and S4.1.4. Since I repeatedly wrote here that my real opinion is different, you are aware that this is a lie. The fact that you can quote my previous words out of context to "prove" it does not make it less of a lie. This is what I am complaining about.

You did make those claims. And I can go to the page and see them. You've not only not retracted them there, but have refusted to. There is no context there that would make one think otherwise. A person going to that page is not going to have any more context unless they really put some work into it. Yes, you retracted them here where few are likely to see it, but you didn't retract it there where people are going to see the claim. Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You started this endless discussion": no, I didn't. As I already wrote above, I only gave you a few tips to check, you made a lengthy discussion out of it, which I didn't expect. (This is also the reason why I didn't put my original comment here, even though it was off-topic on the Provability logic Talk page.) -- EJ 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, I don't see any "tips to check". But I do see you saying things like my page is "patent nonsense". That's not a tip, that's an insult. Particularyly since the "tip" is false. (And note that much of the stuff you've asked me to check doesn't agree with you. And I've yet to anyone on the list of people you asked me to check with that agrees with you. But I'm still going through your references. I've also now checked with several native speakers of English. None of them think those were "tips", and all think you were being insulting. Nahaj 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I always thought that discussion is supposed to be a means of reaching the truth, whereas your goal and desire is apparently to argue, fight, catch on words, bash your opponent, and even downright lie, igoring the merits of the topic. I see no point in continuing such a "dialog", and I do not want to waste any more time on it. Go look for another victim. The "retraction" you wanted is there; I leave your recent comments here unanswered, do not try to misinterpret this as if I agree with you: I don't, I'm just tired of this futile "discussion". -- EJ 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You started this with insults, you are ending it with insults. But I've kept my word, all mention of the systems S4.4.1 and S4.1.4, and all mention of your statements here have been removed from my personal non-wikipedian pages. Thank you, by the way, for the pointers to good papers you made in the sections of the "discussion" where you weren't forcing an argument. Nahaj 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I realized that your original question (name L for GL) got lost in the heated discussion. In my first reply, I was not aware that your background is rather far from provability logic, thus I used some sloppy references which you presumably had troubles to understand. The full references are as follows: "Japaridze-de Jongh survey" is

G. Japaridze and D. de Jongh, The Logic of Provability, in: Handbook of Proof Theory (S. Buss, ed.), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 137, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1998.

"The Solovay's article" is

R. Solovay, Provability interpretations of modal logic, Israel Journal of Mathematics 25 (1976), pp. 287-304.

Hope this helps. -- EJ 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updated references. My background is Modal Logics (a fact I've not exactly hidden), so the second reference should be the most interesting to me. I started with Modal Logics in the 1970's, when Provability Logics weren't much of a separate category. Nahaj 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]