Description
Return any accessible truth as possiblyTrue, all accessible truths as necessarilyTrue, and a separate emptyAccess flag.
Logical labels depend on a specified interpretation, scope and accessibility relation. A material implication holding in one model or a proposition holding in every supplied accessible world is different from proving an actual claim true.
Return any accessible truth as possiblyTrue, all accessible truths as necessarilyTrue, and a separate emptyAccess flag.
When to use this tool
Use Epistemic Possibility Empty Access Case when you need one stated finite-model or scope comparison.
How to use the tool and how it works
- Enter accessibleTruths. Use the units and conventions below.
- Run the tool. Correct any format, range, or cross-field input error before interpreting the output.
- Read possiblyTrue, necessarilyTrue, emptyAccess. Inspect possiblyTrue, necessarilyTrue, emptyAccess before interpreting the associated values.
Return any accessible truth as possiblyTrue, all accessible truths as necessarilyTrue, and a separate emptyAccess flag.1
| Input field | Meaning and units | Accepted input |
|---|---|---|
| accessibleTruths | Accessible Truths | Required. Array of boolean; maximum items 256. |
| Output field | Interpretation | Returned shape |
|---|---|---|
| possiblyTrue | Possibly True | Required. Boolean. |
| necessarilyTrue | Every supplied accessible truth; vacuously true for empty access. | Required. Boolean. |
| emptyAccess | Empty Access | Required. Boolean. |
{
"input": {
"accessibleTruths": [
false,
true
]
},
"output": {
"possiblyTrue": true,
"necessarilyTrue": false,
"emptyAccess": false
}
}Limitations and assumptions
- For an empty list, possible is false and necessary is vacuously true. This is the stated finite accessibility semantics, not a claim that a real proposition is necessarily true.
- Inputs must satisfy both the field types and the cross-field conditions above. Invalid input causes an error; a successful false flag or documented placeholder is a different result.
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use the full logical semantics and all relevant models for an entailment claim. Verify scope, premises and accessibility assumptions before interpreting local boolean results as a general conclusion.
References
Similar or alternative tools
- Evidence Entailment Single Countermodel
Return countermodel when evidenceTrue and not claimTrue, and implicationHoldsHere otherwise.
- Defeater Scope Overlap Bit
Test whether any claim scope occurs in defeaterScopes.