Talk:Hennessy–Milner logic

Work in progress
I'm short on time right now but I will continue this article in a few days. Claim 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

wait how do they derive negation from only these??? 128.200.83.67 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * the following equivalences hold
 * $$\phi\equiv \phi\wedge tt \equiv \neg(\neg tt\vee\neg\phi)\equiv\neg\neg\phi$$


 * $${<}a{>}\phi\equiv\neg{[}a{]}\neg\phi$$
 * but you are right, it is not clear how to derive it from this set.
 * $$ \neg\phi\equiv\phi\implies ff\equiv\neg\phi\vee ff\equiv\neg(\phi\wedge\neg ff)\equiv\neg(\phi\wedge tt)\equiv ???$$


 * it should be possible to derive negation, but not clear enough. Because $$[\tau]\phi$$ where $$\tau$$, an invisible action may be needed. But I am not sure of that. I suppose it is possible, because I saw the same definition in some articles, but assumptions like $$\phi\equiv[a]\phi$$ may be required, and I am not sure if it can be correct.


 * there is no problem if negation is introduced as it is also seen in several articles.
 * I am as busy as Claim was when starting this article, but I will do the needed changes when I can, and when I know more about this logic.
 * by now I will only fix the syntax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.41.71 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)