trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The accessibility relation in modal logic S5 partitions the domain into a specific number of equivalence classes.

the verdict
OVERSTATED
true in a weaker form than the claim states
Recorded sources
no sources on either side

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the accessibility relation in modal logic S5 partitions the domain into a specific number of equivalence classes?

Partly. The claim that the accessibility relation in modal logic S5 partitions the domain into equivalence classes is a foundational definition of the semantics for S5 and requires no citation.

Verdict: OVERSTATED · 0 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim defines standard Kripke semantics for modal logic S5, where an accessibility relation that is an equivalence relation (reflexive, symmetric, and transitive) partitions the set of possible worlds into equivalence classes. This is a matter of mathematical definition and common knowledge in logic, rendering citation of empirical or specialized literature unnecessary.

what the evidence does support

The accessibility relation in modal logic S5 forms an equivalence relation that partitions the domain into equivalence classes, without a specific fixed number.

What does the evidence say?

The claim defines standard Kripke semantics for modal logic S5, where an accessibility relation that is an equivalence relation (reflexive, symmetric, and transitive) partitions the set of possible worlds into equivalence classes. This is a matter of mathematical definition and common knowledge in logic, rendering citation of empirical or specialized literature unnecessary.

What would change this verdict?

The accessibility relation in modal logic S5 forms an equivalence relation that partitions the domain into equivalence classes, without a specific fixed number.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → OVERSTATED · 004 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work