 System \(\Sigma\) then is the process of transforming symmetrically related possibilities to asymmetrical ordered action through the negation of some possible action(s). In most general terms, this allows us to think of \(O\)-relations as modal and conditional. If the \(O\)-relation holds of actions \(A\) and \(B\), then it is the case that if \(A\) is negated (not taken or sacrificed) then \(B\) follows. Rather than being a material conditional \((\neg A \supset B)\), the antecedent and consequent are necessarily related. If \(O(A\: B)\) then \(\Box (A \supset \neg B)\) and \(\Box (\neg A \supset  B)\).[11]  Consequently, the dyadic \(O\)-relation, \(O(A\: B)\) can also be represented as \(\Box (A \equiv \neg B)\) and so as \(\Box (A \supset \neg B) \wedge \Box (B \supset \neg A)\). Given the equivalence relation, it follows that \(B\) is equivalent to \(\neg A\) and so can be substituted for \(B\) so that \(O(A\: \neg A)\) and \(\Box (A \equiv \neg \neg A)\). \(O\)-relations, however, are not limited to dyadic relations. Consider three possible courses of action such that taking any one requires the elimination of the other two courses of action (for example, selecting one of three paths at a fork in the road). This situation can be represented as \(O(A\: B\: C)\). Note that if \(A\) is taken, then neither \(B\) or \(C\) can be taken so that together, \((B \lor C)\) is equivalent to \(\neg A\). Likewise, if \(B\) is taken, then \((A \lor C)\) is equivalent to \(\neg B\) and so on. So \(O(A\: B\: C)\) is also