should learn to reply to list
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:27:22 +0100
From: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?
To: Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This seems a little over the top. Why not defined what NOT, AND, and
OR mean. How about putting in some logical axoims so we can deduce
things from our "logic". What happens if we need FOR ALL, OR THERE
EXISTS!!!
Basically I think this a slippery slope of trying to defined
everything in the ruleset. Perhaps have IFF in though but probably
leave the rest un-capitalized.
--
Peekee (humble-watcher)
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ed Murphy wrote:
As "if not <z>, then the rules do not specify whether <x> CAN or
CANNOT <y>".
OK. Here's my proto-addition to "clarify MMI":
{{{
Enact a power=2 rule with title "Grammar for Logic" and text
The following terms are defined for the discussion of logical
relationships between situations, events, and definitions. The
key words are spelled in all capitals. Where these words are
used in lowercase these definitions do not necessarily apply,
but SHOULD be used as a guide to interpretation.
* <x> IF <y>: if <y> is true then <x> is necessarily the case;
says nothing about situations where <y> is false.
* <x> ONLY IF <y>: <not-x> IF <not-y>.
* <x> IFF <y>: <x> IF <y> and <x> ONLY IF <y>.
* <x> UNLESS <y>: <x> IF <not-y>.
* IF <x> THEN <y>: <y> IF <x>.
}}}
-zefram
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Peekee
