Thanks for the distinction, Jeffrey.
Also, look what I found https://github.com/aimacode. Julia is empty :-).
Can we hire some Martians to fill it up as we have ran out of Julians on
Earth? I'm happy I found this though.
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-3, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote:
>
> you are welcome to use
> implies(p::Bool, q::Bool) = !p | q
> { !p, ~p likely compile to the same instructions -- they do for me; you
> might prefer to use of !p here as that means 'logical_not(p)' where ~p
> means 'flip_the_bits_of(p)' }
>
> I find that this form is also 40% slower than the ifelse form.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 4:11:55 PM UTC-4, Kevin Liu wrote:
>>
>> Is this why I couldn't find implication in Julia?
>>
>> Maybe it was considered redundant because (1) it is less primitive than
>>> "^", "v", "~", (2) it saves very little typing since "A => B" is equivalent
>>> to "~A v B". – Giorgio
>>> <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/users/29020/giorgio> Jan 18 '13
>>> at 14:50
>>> <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/184089/why-dont-languages-include-implication-as-a-logical-operator#comment353607_184089>
>>
>>
>> Wikipedia also says the implication table is identical to that of ~p | q.
>> So instead just the below?
>>
>> julia> ~p | q
>>
>> false
>>
>>
>> I'll take that.
>>
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 4:08:00 PM UTC-3, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote:
>>>
>>> (the version using ifelse benchmarks faster on my system)
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> here are two ways
>>>>
>>>> implies(p::Bool, q::Bool) = !(p & !q)
>>>>
>>>> implies(p::Bool, q::Bool) = ifelse(p, q, true)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-4, Kevin Liu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How is an implication represented in Julia?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional#Definitions_of_the_material_conditional
>>>>>
>>>>
