Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> Wow, what an old thread...
>
> Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
> > "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On the other hand, if you wanted to say "true for all except exactly
> > > one value, I can't think of a way.
> >
> > Easy. The following two sta
Wow, what an old thread...
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
> "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, if you wanted to say "true for all except exactly
> > one value, I can't think of a way.
>
> Easy. The following two statements are
"Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, if you wanted to say "true for all except exactly
> one value, I can't think of a way.
Easy. The following two statements are equivalent:
F(x) is true for all but exactly one x
(not F(x)) is true for exactly one x
The onl
> Hello,
>
> Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
Yes. Damian and I have already worked them out in a link I have
already posted today:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3DF2FE76.6050602%40conway.org&rnum=2
> In par
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Derek Ross wrote:
> Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
> In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
> to the following perl6 junctions:
>
> LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
> =
