# Modal Logic Question

identity
reductive
functional

1. Is that a harmonic triad? Identity yellow, reductive blue, functional red?

2. What does reductive mean?

For posterity.

Reductive… a limiting factor, no?

For the moment, possibly necessary “seems to” imply possibly not necessary. I don’t see how necessary A follows from possibly necessary A.

Does reductive just mean definite/defined?

If you can’t rule out the necessary as IMPOSSIBLE, then it’s necessary… is my feeling.

1 Like

the case=definitive proof of concept

methinks

Prolly same reason folks prefer Boole to Aristotle on existential import, I’m guessing.

Piecing things together:

Jorgensen’s dilemma resolution. (only indicatives have truth value — as in — a nonempty category, or a particular instance/individual)

If you can easily solve “individuals” by saying them as “categoricals” (“All people who are Socrates…”) — then rephrasing imperatives as indicatives should be easy enough, just like rephrasing from passive to active voice. It won’t prove existence, like it wouldn’t prove the existence of Socrates. Are you going to DENY person equals person? That’s denying the law of identity.

Don’t have it all yet.

If you’re treating every person as category and you’re treating every category as necessary then you’re treating every person as necessary. That’s gonna glitch (isn’t it?).

This is partly why I need help translating between logics for the square of opposition.