That’s not a proof; it’s an (invalid) inference — doubly invalid if you have no form for imperfect induction, but in any case invalid by the introduction of ‘we know that’ as a modal operator (are we doing epistemic logic? p->q |= p->Kq isn’t a valid schema).

It’s not in FOL, because of the modal operator, and it’s an instance of a schema, not a proof. Not what I asked for.

Anyway, I wrote something on Maps of Meaning in case you’re interested.

Lecturer in Philosophy, University of St. Andrews — personal website:

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store