Prover9's Simplification Explained Away

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):585 - 592 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This note discusses P. Oppenheimer and E. Zalta's ?A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument? [this journal, 2011]. I try to explain why the simplification presented there was successful and comment on the technical aspects of the method they applied

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,296

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why is conjunctive simplification invalid?Bruce E. R. Thompson - 1991 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32 (2):248-254.
Aspects of simplification in mathematics teaching.Arnold Kirsch & John Scherk - 2000 - In Ian Westbury, Stefan Hopmann & Kurt Riquarts (eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: the German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. pp. 267--284.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-12-16

Downloads
9 (#1,281,906)

6 months
50 (#92,477)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paweł Garbacz
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

Citations of this work

On Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogion II.Paul E. Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta - 2021 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 25 (2):327-351.
Anselm's God in Isabelle/HOL.Ben Blumson - 2017 - Archive of Formal Proofs:9.
On the PROVER9 Ontological Argument.T. Parent - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):475-483.
Mechanized analysis of Anselm’s modal ontological argument.John Rushby - 2020 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 89 (2):135-152.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references