2
$\begingroup$

Can someone explain to me (perhaps with an example) why $AF (\phi \lor \varphi)$ is not equivalent to $AF \phi \lor AF \varphi$. This seems counter-intuitive, because in any path where $\phi$ (or $\varphi$) is true, $\phi \lor \varphi$ is true as well. Or is my reasoning wrong?

Thanks

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

You also need to argue the other way around. "Each path has either $\psi$ or $\varphi$" is not the same as "either each path has $\psi$ or each path has $\varphi$".

enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.