COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	know2[f83,jmc][f83,jmc]	Passing the salt
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
know2[f83,jmc][f83,jmc]	Passing the salt

Here are some axioms.  They require further parametrization with
situations and sometimes with persons.  Moreover, they require
qualification with ab.  We have both crude versions, more understandable
and versions ready for situation parametrization.

Here is a crude version that requires both person and situation
parametrization.  We can imagine that its interpretation requires
a context that supplies both.

want g ⊃ willget g

Here is an expanded version of the same thing.
∀p g.true(not ab aspect1(p,g) and want(p,g) imp willget(p,g))

∀prop.true(prop) ⊃ ∀s.true1(prop,s)
Of course, this is not the same as validity, because referring to all
situations is not the same as referring to all models of the axioms.

not ab aspect2(a,g) and want(p,g) and achieves(a,g) imp does(p,a)

not ab aspect3(a,g) and and want g knows achieves(a,g) imp does g

These last two are related, since the second imposes the additional
condition that the person know that  a  achieves  g.  Many simple problems
are simply solved by assuming that people normally know the relevant facts -
in particular the consequences of their actions.

not ab aspect4(a,g) and achieves(a,g) imp knows achieves(a,g)

achieves(a,g) and does g imp willget g

Maybe this doesn't require qualification, because any desired qualifications
can be put on  achieves(a,g).

prop imp knows(person,prop)

likes(p,q) and knows(p,wants(q,g)) imp wants(p,g)

tells(p,q,prop) imp knows(q,prop)

about-own-mental-state(p,prop) and prop imp knows(p,prop)

about-own-mental-state(p,wants(p,q))

near(salt,p) and near-enough(p,q) imp achieves(p,pass(salt,q),has(q,salt))