On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
============================== CFJ 2412
==============================
[snip]
So how does that translate for SHALL->CAN?
Gratuitous addition:
While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found that SHALL
NOT ->
CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT -> CANNOT would probably
break a lot of things.
It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that
CANNOT -> SHALL NOT, given that SHALL -> CAN.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
