Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term∼_» = Lean.ParserDescr.node `NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term∼_» 75 (Lean.ParserDescr.binary `andthen (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol "∼") (Lean.ParserDescr.cat `term 75))
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Conjunction of a set of propositions (grand conjunction ⋀X) "⋀X refers to the grand conjunction of its members, i.e., the proposition that is true in a world u if and only if every member of X is true in u"
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term⋀» = Lean.ParserDescr.node `NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term⋀» 1024 (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol "⋀")
Instances For
Disjunction of a set of propositions (grand disjunction ⋁X) "⋁X refers to the grand disjunction of the members of X, i.e., the proposition that is true in a world u if and only if at least one member of X is true in u"
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term⋁» = Lean.ParserDescr.node `NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.«term⋁» 1024 (Lean.ParserDescr.symbol "⋁")
Instances For
Definition 1.1: Given a set of alternatives ALT, ≤_ALT is the preorder over possible worlds defined as follows:
u ≤_ALT v iff {a ∈ ALT : a(u) = 1} ⊆ {a ∈ ALT : a(v) = 1}
"u makes true a subset of the alternatives that v makes true"
Instances For
Definition 1.2: <_ALT is the strict preorder corresponding to ≤_ALT:
u <_ALT v iff u ≤_ALT v ∧ ¬(v ≤_ALT u)
"The alternatives that u makes true are a proper subset of those that v makes true."
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Definition 2: Exhaustivity operator based on minimal worlds (exh_mw)
Given a set of propositions ALT and a proposition φ,
exh_mw(ALT, φ) = {u : φ(u) = 1 ∧ ¬∃v(φ(v) = 1 ∧ v <_ALT u)}
Equivalently: exh_mw(ALT, φ) = φ ∩ {u : ¬∃v(φ(v) = 1 ∧ v <_ALT u)}
"The set of φ-worlds that are minimal relative to <_ALT"
Instances For
Definition 3.1: A set of propositions X is consistent if there exists a world u in which every member of X is true.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.SetConsistent X = ∃ (u : World), ∀ ψ ∈ X, ψ u
Instances For
Definition 3.2: Given a proposition φ and a set of alternatives ALT, a set of propositions E is (ALT, φ)-compatible if and only if: a) φ ∈ E b) every member of E distinct from φ is the negation of a member of ALT c) E is consistent
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isCompatible ALT φ E = (φ ∈ E ∧ (∀ ψ ∈ E, ψ = φ ∨ ∃ a ∈ ALT, ψ = ∼a) ∧ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.SetConsistent E)
Instances For
Definition 3.3: MC_(ALT,φ)-sets
A set is maximal (ALT, φ)-compatible (MC_(ALT,φ)-set for short) if it is (ALT, φ)-compatible and is not properly included in any other (ALT, φ)-compatible set.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isMCSet ALT φ E = (NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isCompatible ALT φ E ∧ ∀ (E' : Set (Prop' World)), NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isCompatible ALT φ E' → E ⊆ E' → E' ⊆ E)
Instances For
Definition 3.4: IE_(ALT,φ) = {ψ : ψ belongs to every MC_(ALT,φ)-set}
"Note that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the set IE_(ALT,φ) is not the set of innocently excludable alternatives, but rather the set that contains φ and all the negations of innocently excludable alternatives."
Equations
Instances For
Definition 3.5: An alternative a is innocently excludable given ALT and φ if and only if ¬a ∈ IE_(ALT,φ).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isInnocentlyExcludable ALT φ a = (a ∈ ALT ∧ ∼a ∈ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.IE ALT φ)
Instances For
Definition 4: Exhaustivity operator based on innocent exclusion (exh_ie)
exh_ie(ALT, φ) = {u : ∀ψ(ψ ∈ IE_(ALT,φ) → ψ(u) = 1)}
Equivalently: exh_ie(ALT, φ) = ⋀ IE_(ALT,φ)
Equivalently: exh_ie(ALT, φ) = φ ∧ ⋀{¬a : a is a member of ALT that is innocently excludable given ALT and φ}
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.exhIE ALT φ u = ∀ ψ ∈ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.IE ALT φ, ψ u
Instances For
A set ALT is closed under conjunction if for any subset X of ALT, ⋀X ∈ ALT.
(Definition 5 in Spector)
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.closedUnderConj ALT = ∀ X ⊆ ALT, ⋀ X ∈ ALT
Instances For
A set ALT is closed under disjunction if for any subset X of ALT, ⋁X ∈ ALT.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.closedUnderDisj ALT = ∀ X ⊆ ALT, ⋁ X ∈ ALT
Instances For
Well-foundedness for finite ALT: The strict ordering <_ALT is well-founded when ALT is finite.
Proof idea: For any infinite descending chain w₁ >_ALT w₂ >_ALT..., the set of true alternatives strictly increases at each step. Since ALT is finite, this cannot continue indefinitely.
Existence of minimal worlds for finite ALT: When ALT is finite and φ is satisfiable, there exists a minimal φ-world.
Definition from Section 5.3: X(u) = {φ} ∪ {¬a : a ∈ ALT ∧ a(u) = 0}
For any world u, X(u) is the set containing φ and the negations of all alternatives that are false at u.
"XALT,φ(u) = {φ} ∪ {¬a: a ∈ ALT ∧ a(u) = 0}"
Equations
Instances For
Key equivalence (from proof of Lemma 1): For any two φ-worlds u and v: u <_ALT v ⟺ X(v) ⊊ X(u)
"The alternatives that u makes true are a proper subset of those v makes true" is equivalent to "X(v) is a proper subset of X(u)".
X(u) contains φ.
u satisfies everything in X(u).
X(u) is (ALT, φ)-compatible when φ u holds.
Lemma 1 (Spector p.22): For any φ-world u: u is a minimal φ-world relative to <ALT ⟺ X(u) is an MC(ALT,φ)-set.
This is the key connection between the two definitions of exhaustivity.
Note: We add the explicit hypothesis (hu : φ u) since both directions require it.
MC-set existence from minimal world existence (Spector's approach): When a minimal φ-world exists, an MC-set exists.
This follows directly from Lemma 1: if u is minimal, then X(u) is an MC-set.
MC-set existence for finite ALT: When ALT is finite and φ is satisfiable, an MC-set exists.
This combines:
- exists_minimal_of_finite: finite ALT + satisfiable φ → minimal world exists
- exists_MCset_of_minimal: minimal world exists → MC-set exists
Every element of IE is either φ or ∼a for some a ∈ ALT. This follows from the structure of compatible sets.
Note: Requires finite ALT to ensure MC-sets exist.
Lemma 2 (Spector p.23, Core Lemma): For every proposition φ, every set of alternatives ALT, and every world u, exh_mw(ALT, φ)(u) = 1 ⟺ there is an MC_(ALT,φ)-set X that u satisfies.
Equivalently: u is a minimal φ-world relative to <ALT ⟺ there is an MC(ALT,φ)-set X that u satisfies.
Lemma 3 (reformulation of Lemma 2): exh_mw(ALT, φ) = ⋁{⋀X : X is an MC_(ALT,φ)-set}
The minimal-worlds exhaustification is the disjunction of the conjunctions of all MC-sets.
Proposition 6 (Spector p.12): For any proposition φ with alternatives ALT, exh_mw(ALT, φ) entails exh_ie(ALT, φ).
Proof idea: Any world satisfying exh_mw satisfies some MC-set, hence satisfies the intersection of all MC-sets, hence satisfies IE.
Proposition 7 (Spector p.12): For any ALT, any a ∈ ALT, and any proposition φ, a is innocently excludable given ALT and φ if and only if exh_mw(ALT, φ) entails ¬a.
This characterizes innocent exclusion in terms of the minimal-worlds operator.
Corollary 8 (Spector p.12): exh_ie(ALT, φ) = φ ∧ ⋀{¬a : a ∈ ALT ∧ exh_mw(ALT, φ) ⊆ ¬a}
This gives an alternative characterization of exh_ie in terms of exh_mw.
Note: The backward direction requires finite ALT for IE_structure.
Theorem 9 (Main Result, Spector p.12-13): For any φ and any ALT, if ALT is closed under conjunction, then
exh_mw(ALT, φ) = exh_ie(ALT, φ)
Proof outline (from Section 5.4): Since exh_mw always entails exh_ie (Prop 6), we need to show exh_ie ⊆ exh_mw when ALT is closed under conjunction.
Suppose exh_mw(φ)(u) = 0 but φ(u) = 1. We must show exh_ie(φ)(u) = 0.
Let A = {a ∈ ALT : a(u) = 1}. Since u is not minimal, every MC-set contains a negation of some member of A. Consider ⋀A. Since every MC-set has a member whose negation is in A, ⋀A is false in every world satisfying an MC-set. Therefore ¬(⋀A) is consistent with every MC-set.
Since ALT is closed under conjunction, ⋀A ∈ ALT. Since ¬(⋀A) is consistent with every MC-set and MC-sets are maximal, ¬(⋀A) ∈ IE. But (⋀A)(u) = 1, so u fails to satisfy IE, hence exh_ie(φ)(u) = 0.
Key lemma: The preorder ≤_ALT is unchanged by disjunction closure.
If ALT' is the disjunction closure of ALT, then u ≤{ALT} v ↔ u ≤{ALT'} v.
Proof: If a disjunction (⋁X) is true at u where X ⊆ ALT, then some b ∈ X is true at u. If u ≤_{ALT} v, then b is true at v, so (⋁X) is true at v.
Theorem 10 (Spector p.13): For any proposition φ and any alternative set ALT, exh_ie(ALT, φ) = exh_ie(ALT∨, φ)
where ALT∨ is the closure of ALT under disjunction.
"Closing the alternatives under disjunction (but crucially not conjunction) is vacuous for exh_ie."
Proof strategy: Use Corollary 8's characterization: exhIE ALT φ ≡ₚ λ u => φ u ∧ ∀ a ∈ ALT, (exhMW ALT φ ⊆ₚ ∼a) → ¬(a u)
Since exhMW is unchanged by disjunction closure, we just need to check that the extra conditions for ALT' (disjunctions) are implied by the ALT conditions.
Corollary 11 (Spector p.13): For any proposition φ and any alternative set ALT, if ALT∨ = ALT∨∧, then exh_mw(ALT, φ) = exh_ie(ALT, φ).
"If the closure of ALT under disjunction is closed under conjunction, applying exh_mw and exh_ie give rise to equivalent results."
Worlds for some/all example: number of students who passed (0 to 3).
Equations
Instances For
"Some students passed" (at least one).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.someStudents w = (↑w ≥ 1)
Instances For
"All students passed" (all three).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.allStudents w = (↑w = 3)
Instances For
Alternative set: {some, all}.
Equations
Instances For
World where exactly 1 student passed.
Instances For
World where all 3 students passed.
Instances For
w=1 satisfies "some students passed".
w=1 does not satisfy "all students passed".
w=3 satisfies both "some" and "all".
w=1 ≤_ALT w=3: alternatives true at w=1 are a subset of those at w=3.
w=3 does not satisfy ≤_ALT w=1: w=3 satisfies "all" but w=1 does not.
w=1 <_ALT w=3: strict ordering holds.
w=1 is minimal among "some"-worlds relative to <_ALT.
w=3 is not minimal because w=1 <_ALT w=3.
Main result for some/all: exh_mw(some) holds at w=1.
This captures the scalar implicature: "some but not all".
Corollary: exh_mw(some) does not hold at w=3.
Worlds where "all" holds are excluded by exhaustification.
Four worlds for or/and example.
- neither : OrAndWorld
- onlySang : OrAndWorld
- onlyDanced : OrAndWorld
- both : OrAndWorld
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"John sang"
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sang NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.neither = False
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sang NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.onlySang = True
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sang NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.onlyDanced = False
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sang NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.both = True
Instances For
"John danced"
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.danced NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.neither = False
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.danced NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.onlySang = False
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.danced NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.onlyDanced = True
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.danced NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.OrAndWorld.both = True
Instances For
"John sang or danced" (inclusive)
Equations
Instances For
"John sang and danced"
Equations
Instances For
Alternative set: {or, and}.
Equations
Instances For
The "only sang" world.
Instances For
The "both" world.
Instances For
wSang does not satisfy "and".
wBoth satisfies both "or" and "and".
wSang is minimal among or-worlds.
Main result for or/and: exh_mw(or) at wSang (exclusive reading).
Corollary: exh_mw(or) excludes the "both" world.
This is the exclusive disjunction reading.
For the some/all scale, the stronger alternative (all) entails the weaker (some).
For the some/all scale: exhMW ≡ exhIE.
We prove this using Proposition 6 (⊆) and a direct argument for (⊇). The key insight: at any exhIE world, the stronger alternative is false, which means the world is minimal (no world below it satisfies more alternatives).
For the or/and scale, the stronger alternative (and) entails the weaker (or).
For the or/and scale: exhMW ≡ exhIE.
Theorem 9 application: At w1, both exhMW and exhIE agree.
Theorem 9 application: At w3, both exhMW and exhIE agree (both false).
Theorem 9 application: At wSang, both exhMW and exhIE agree.
Theorem 9 application: At wBoth, both exhMW and exhIE agree (both false).
Maximize Strength #
@cite{chierchia-2013} "Logic in Grammar" proposes that scalar implicature computation follows the Maximize Strength principle:
"Don't add an implicature if it leads to weakening, unless you have to"
This explains the distribution of scalar implicatures across contexts:
| Context | Polarity | Effect of SI | SI computed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upward Entailing | UE | Strengthens | ✓ Yes |
| Downward Entailing | DE | Weakens | ✗ No |
Examples #
UE context (positive sentence):
- "John saw some students" → "John saw some but not all students"
- SI strengthens: original entails exhaustified
DE context (antecedent of conditional):
- "If John saw some students, he's happy" → No SI
- SI would weaken: exhaustified entails original
- Adding "not all" to antecedent makes the conditional weaker
Connection to Exhaustification #
Maximize Strength captures when exh is applied:
- In UE contexts:
exh(φ) ⊆ₚ φ(strengthening) → apply exh - In DE contexts:
φ ⊆ₚ exh(φ)(weakening in overall sentence) → don't apply exh
Theoretical Significance #
This principle unifies several phenomena:
- Why SIs are optional in positive contexts (strengthening available)
- Why SIs disappear in DE contexts (would weaken)
- Why NPIs need DE contexts (exhaustification contradicts in UE)
- Why FCIs have complex distribution (modal rescue)
A context is a function that embeds a proposition into a larger structure.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Context World = (Prop' World → Prop' World)
Instances For
A context is upward entailing (monotone) if φ ⊆ ψ implies C(φ) ⊆ C(ψ).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.IsUpwardEntailing C = ∀ (φ ψ : Prop' World), (φ ⊆ₚ ψ) → C φ ⊆ₚ C ψ
Instances For
A context is downward entailing (antitone) if φ ⊆ ψ implies C(ψ) ⊆ C(φ).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.IsDownwardEntailing C = ∀ (φ ψ : Prop' World), (φ ⊆ₚ ψ) → C ψ ⊆ₚ C φ
Instances For
In a UE context, exhaustification strengthens the embedded proposition. That is: C(exh(φ)) ⊆ C(φ) when C is UE and exh(φ) ⊆ φ.
In a DE context, exhaustification weakens the overall sentence. That is: C(φ) ⊆ C(exh(φ)) when C is DE and exh(φ) ⊆ φ.
The identity context is upward entailing.
Negation context is downward entailing.
Maximize Strength: compute SI iff context is UE (strengthening).
This is the core principle: only apply exhaustification when it results in strengthening of the overall assertion.
Equations
Instances For
In a UE context, exh_mw results in a stronger overall sentence.
In a DE context, applying exh_mw weakens the overall sentence. Hence, Maximize Strength predicts no scalar implicature in DE contexts.
Example: "Some students passed" in UE context #
Positive sentence: C = id (identity context)
- φ = "some students passed"
- exh(φ) = "some but not all students passed"
- C(exh(φ)) ⊆ C(φ) ✓ Strengthens
- Prediction: SI computed → "not all"
Example: "If some students passed,..." (antecedent) #
Conditional antecedent: C = (λp. p → q) is DE
- φ = "some students passed"
- exh(φ) = "some but not all students passed"
- C(φ) ⊆ C(exh(φ)) - SI would weaken the conditional
- Prediction: no SI in antecedent
This matches empirical observations:
- "If some students passed, the teacher is happy" does not implicate "If some but not all students passed..."
Maximize Strength predictions summary:
| Context Type | SI Effect | Prediction | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matrix clause (UE) | Strengthens | Compute SI | "some → not all" |
| Negation scope (DE) | Weakens | No SI | "not some → some or none" |
| Conditional antecedent (DE) | Weakens | No SI | "if some, then..." |
| Universal restrictor (DE) | Weakens | No SI | "every... who saw some..." |
| Question nucleus (NM) | Neither | No SI | "Did some...?" |
- description : String
- contextType : Core.NaturalLogic.ContextPolarity
- siComputed : Bool
- explanation : String
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
exh_mx: The Third Exhaustification Operator #
@cite{wang-2025} "Presupposition, Competition, and Coherence" introduces exh_mx,
which yields one exhaustified proposition per maximal consistent subset (MC-set),
rather than intersecting all MC-sets (as exh_ie does).
When all MC-sets agree (i.e., ALT is closed under ∧), exh_mx = exh_ie = exh_mw
(by Theorem 9). When MC-sets diverge, exh_mx produces multiple readings—one
per MC-set—capturing ambiguity in presuppositional alternatives.
Key relationships: #
exh_mw= ⋁{⋀E : E is MC-set} (Lemma 3 above)exh_ie= ⋀(⋂ all MC-sets) (Definition 4 above)exh_mx= one reading per MC-set: for each E, ⋀E
An exh_mx reading for a specific MC-set E: the conjunction of E.
Unlike exh_ie (which is the conjunction of the intersection of all MC-sets),
exh_mx gives one reading per MC-set. When MC-sets disagree about which
alternatives to exclude, exh_mx captures the resulting ambiguity.
@cite{wang-2025} Ch4: "exh_mx(ALT, φ, w) = φ(w) ∧ ∀q ∈ Max(φ, ALT)[¬q(w)]" where Max is a specific maximal consistent subset.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.exhMXReading E u = ∀ ψ ∈ E, ψ u
Instances For
The set of all exh_mx readings: one per MC-set.
This is the set of propositions, not a single proposition. Each reading corresponds to a different way of consistently excluding alternatives.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.exhMXReadings ALT φ = {p : Prop' World | ∃ (E : Set (Prop' World)), NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isMCSet ALT φ E ∧ p = NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.exhMXReading E}
Instances For
The conjunction of all exh_mx readings entails exh_ie.
Together with exhMXReading_entails_exhIE (each reading entails exh_ie),
this gives the full picture of how exh_ie relates to exh_mx readings:
⋀(readings) ⊆ₚ each reading ⊆ₚ exh_ie
Note: the REVERSE direction (exhIE ⊆ₚ ⋀ readings) does NOT hold in general. When MC-sets diverge, an MC-set E may contain alternatives ψ ∉ IE. Satisfying all of IE (exhIE) does not guarantee satisfying all of E (a specific reading), because E may require excluding alternatives that other MC-sets include.
Every exh_mx reading entails exh_ie.
Since exh_ie is the intersection of all MC-sets and each exh_mx reading
is a single MC-set, each reading is at least as strong as exh_ie.
exh_mw is the disjunction of all exh_mx readings (Lemma 3 restated).
This connects all three operators:
exh_mw= ⋁(exh_mx readings) (disjunction — some MC-set is satisfied)exh_ie= ⋀(exh_mx readings) (conjunction — all MC-sets are satisfied)- When there is exactly one MC-set:
exh_mw=exh_ie=exh_mx
Under conjunction closure, all three exhaustification operators coincide:
exh_ie = exh_mw = ⋁(exh_mx readings).
This does NOT mean there is only one reading. When MC-sets diverge,
individual readings remain distinct — but their disjunction equals exh_ie.
Combines Theorem 9 (exhMW ≡ₚ exhIE) with Lemma 3 (exhMW ≡ₚ ⋁ readings).
When there is a unique MC-set, all exh_mx readings are equivalent.
MC-set uniqueness is a stronger condition than conjunction closure alone. It holds when ALT has additional structural properties (e.g., symmetric closure under both conjunction and disjunction, per @cite{spector-2016}).
FLAT: Collapsing Nested Alternative Sets #
@cite{wang-2025} Ch4 defines the FLAT operator for collapsing nested alternative sets (sets of sets of propositions) into a flat set via cross-product conjunction.
Given S = {A₁, A₂,...} where each Aᵢ is a set of propositions, FLAT(S) = {⋀{f(Aᵢ) | i} | f is a choice function picking one from each Aᵢ}
This is proved equivalent to @cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984} pointwise answerhood (Ans_PW).
FLAT: Collapse a family of alternative sets into a flat set via cross-product conjunction. Each element of FLAT(S) is the conjunction of one choice from each alternative set in S.
@cite{wang-2025} Ch4: FLAT({A₁,...,Aₙ}) = {a₁ ∧... ∧ aₙ | aᵢ ∈ Aᵢ}
Uses a total choice function restricted to S to avoid dependent types.
Equations
Instances For
Innocent Inclusion #
From @cite{bar-lev-fox-2020}, Definition (51):
II(p, C) = ∩{C'' ⊆ C : C'' is maximal s.t. {r : r ∈ C''} ∪ {p} ∪ {¬q : q ∈ IE(p,C)} is consistent}
After computing IE, find all maximal subsets of alternatives that can consistently be assigned TRUE (given that IE alternatives are false). An alternative is innocently includable iff it appears in ALL such maximal sets.
Definition (II-compatible set): A set of propositions R is (ALT, φ, IE)-compatible for inclusion if: a) R ⊆ ALT b) {r : r ∈ R} ∪ {φ} ∪ {¬q : q ∈ IE(ALT, φ)} is consistent
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Definition (MI-set): Maximal II-compatible set. A set R is maximally (ALT, φ, IE)-compatible if it is II-compatible and not properly included in any other II-compatible set.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isMISet ALT φ R = (NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isIICompatible ALT φ R ∧ ∀ (R' : Set (Prop' World)), NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isIICompatible ALT φ R' → R ⊆ R' → R' ⊆ R)
Instances For
Definition (II): II(ALT, φ) = {r ∈ ALT : r belongs to every MI-set}
An alternative r is innocently includable iff it belongs to every MI-set.
Equations
Instances For
An alternative a is innocently includable given ALT and φ if and only if a ∈ II(ALT, φ).
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isInnocentlyIncludable ALT φ a = (a ∈ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.II ALT φ)
Instances For
Definition (Exh^{IE+II}): The exhaustivity operator with both IE and II.
⟦Exh^{IE+II}⟧(ALT)(φ)(w) ⇔ φ(w) ∧ ∀q ∈ IE(ALT,φ)[¬q(w)] ∧ -- exclude IE alternatives ∀r ∈ II(ALT,φ)[r(w)] -- include II alternatives
This is Bar-Lev & Fox's key operator that derives free choice.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Decidable Innocent Exclusion #
The exhIE above is a specification: it quantifies over all Set (Prop' World),
so it cannot be evaluated computationally. The functions below implement the same
algorithm over [Fintype World] types using Bool-valued meanings and explicit
subset enumeration. This makes them usable by native_decide and rsa_predict.
Satisfiability check over an explicit list of worlds.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.isSatBool worlds f = worlds.any f
Instances For
All sublists (subsets) of a list of indices.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sublists [] = [[]]
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sublists (a :: as) = List.map (fun (x : List ℕ) => a :: x) (NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sublists as) ++ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.sublists as
Instances For
Innocent Exclusion over Bool-valued meanings: find indices of alternatives
that appear in every maximal consistent exclusion set.
worlds must enumerate all inhabitants of W.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Apply Innocent Exclusion: conjoin prejacent with negations of IE alternatives.
worlds must enumerate all inhabitants of W.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.