... of''¹

From (Kirkham, 1997, p.56).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... grammar²

C.f. (Priest, 1986, p.1).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... a,b,c,\dots³

According to (Andersen, 1994, pp. 25) then this prima facie seems to impose a restriction on the number of variables - as there are only a limited number of letters. However this is not the case as one could define a different scheme of designating the variables. One could choose the variable names like 10#10 The proposed scheme is only a shorthand, convenient way of designating the variables. Furthermore it does not go against the prerequisite that the alphabet must be definite.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... Brackets⁴

These are used to resolve ambiguity in operator precedence but they could be disposed of by using e.g. polish notation developed by the polish logician Jan ukasiewicz.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... operators⁵

Some authors denote these as ``Logical Connectives''.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...false ⁶

In a more formal language then one can regard propositions as functions that map from its domain to truth values.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...infon⁷

See e.g. (Devlin, 1991) for further details.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... in⁸

See e.g. (Hendricks, 2001), (G.E. Hughes, 1998).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... needed⁹

Cf (G.E. Hughes, 1998).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... authors¹⁰

See e.g. (Lewis, 1973).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... alike¹¹

Cf. (, ). The term structurally alike indicates that possible worlds should have the same initial conditions and laws of nature.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... beliefs¹²

Cf. Jan Faye, personal communication.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... definition¹³

Cf. (Hendricks, 2001, p.33).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... schemata¹⁴

C.f. (Gamut, 1991b, p.149).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...¹⁵

See (Hendricks, 2001, p.227).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... tenseless¹⁶

See also (Faye, 1989, p.126). He describes the tense and tenseless truth-conditions for the propositions, but the arguments are basically the same as stated here.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... tense)¹⁷

(Hendricks, 2000) uses a different set of terms for these. The names here is adopted from (Burgess, 1984).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...¹⁸

See (Hendricks, 2001, p.285).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... shows¹⁹

C.f. (Gamut, 1991a, p. 40). ``Then'' is added by the present writer.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... short²⁰

This field have been investigated in the works such as (Stalnaker, 1968), (Lewis, 1979), (Goodman, 1984) and others

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...²¹

See (Hendricks, 2001, p.227).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... tense)²²

(Hendricks, 2000) uses a different set of terms for these. The names here is adopted from (Burgess, 1984).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...²³

See (Hendricks, 2001, p.285).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...4#4²⁴

See figure 2.1.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... shows²⁵

C.f. (Gamut, 1991a, p. 40). ``Then'' is added by the present writer.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... short²⁶

This field have been investigated in the works such as (Stalnaker, 1968), (Lewis, 1979), (Goodman, 1984) and others

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... non-branching²⁷

C.f. (MacBeath, 1993, p 155).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... determinate²⁸

C.f. (Dorato, 1995, p.27).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... branches²⁹

I.e. nodes that does not have any siblings.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... successor³⁰

It should be noted that this is a general claim, that need not be true in all cases. If the temporal system is finite then there will be one or two time-points that will not have a predecessor or successor - i.e. the first or the last time-point.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... 163#163³¹

See also (Hendricks, 2001, pp. 268-269). Prior (1967) uses this notation to represent the third value.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... models''³²

C.f. (, , p. 204)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... 167#167³³

Rewritten from Hendricks (2001, p. 234).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

....³⁴

C.f. Ross (1988, p. 285).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... 169#169³⁵

C.f. Ross (1988, p. 285).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

....³⁶

C.f. Ross (1988, p. 285).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.