wanted to share with you a valid formula example that raises a TypeError when trying to build a proof for it.
The formula can be accessed here)~1~7x(Ox~1Mx))~1(~6x((Ox~1Mx)~5(~9(Ox~1Sx)~1~9(Ox~1~3Sx)))~1~7x(Ox~1Mx)))~5(~7x(~9(Ox~1Sx)~1~9(Ox~1~3Px))~2~3~7x~9(Ox~1Sx))||universality).
In case something doesn't work (?), formula in prover syntax: ((∀x((Ox∧Mx)→(◇(Ox∧Px)∧◇(Ox∧¬Px)))∧∃x(Ox∧Mx))∧(∀x((Ox∧Mx)→(◇(Ox∧Sx)∧◇(Ox∧¬Sx)))∧∃x(Ox∧Mx)))→(∃x(◇(Ox∧Sx)∧◇(Ox∧¬Px))∨¬∃x◇(Ox∧Sx))
The accessibility relation is universal.
TypeError occurs here, but I'm sure you will get more information by checking the Javascript console after running the formula.
I'm deeply grateful for your work, it's an amazing tool, thank you!
Thanks! Good catch. I have barely tested the prover with quantified modal formulas. This should be fixed now on umsu.de. (Currently can't update github.)
Dear, Wolfgang,
wanted to share with you a valid formula example that raises a
TypeError
when trying to build a proof for it.The formula can be accessed here)~1~7x(Ox~1Mx))~1(~6x((Ox~1Mx)~5(~9(Ox~1Sx)~1~9(Ox~1~3Sx)))~1~7x(Ox~1Mx)))~5(~7x(~9(Ox~1Sx)~1~9(Ox~1~3Px))~2~3~7x~9(Ox~1Sx))||universality).
In case something doesn't work (?), formula in prover syntax:
((∀x((Ox∧Mx)→(◇(Ox∧Px)∧◇(Ox∧¬Px)))∧∃x(Ox∧Mx))∧(∀x((Ox∧Mx)→(◇(Ox∧Sx)∧◇(Ox∧¬Sx)))∧∃x(Ox∧Mx)))→(∃x(◇(Ox∧Sx)∧◇(Ox∧¬Px))∨¬∃x◇(Ox∧Sx))
The accessibility relation is
universal
.TypeError
occurs here, but I'm sure you will get more information by checking theJavascript
console after running the formula.I'm deeply grateful for your work, it's an amazing tool, thank you!