Must . . . Stay . . . Strong!
| Abstract | That much is clear. What about the relation between one of these modalized claims and the bare prejacent it is raining? Where does that belong on the list? Is it stronger or weaker than “strong” epistemic necessity modals like must in English? That is less clear and is our focus in this paper. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPiotr Koszmider (1998). On the Existence of Strong Chains in ℘(Ω1)/Fin. Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (3):1055 - 1062.
Aaron Sloman (1986). Did Searle Attack Strong Strong AI or Weak Strong AI? In Artificial Intelligence and its Applications. Chichester.
Alexander Bird (2004). Strong Necessitarianism: The Nomological Identity of Possible Worlds. Ratio 17 (3):256–276.
Jacek Malinowski (1992). Strong Versus Weak Quantum Consequence Operations. Studia Logica 51 (1):113 - 123.
Oron Shagrir (2009). Strong Global Supervenience is Valuable. Erkenntnis 71 (3):417 - 423.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,648 of 549,090 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,090 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
