On Jun 21, 12:34 pm, Andrew Tomazos <and...@tomazos.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 9:11 pm, Jan Burse <janbu...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > For example your theorem could also be formalize as follows: > > > forall a, b, c in nat > > (a^2 + b^2 = c^2 & > > rel_prim(a,b) & > > odd(a) => exists m, n in nat > > (m<=n & > > a = n^2 - m^2 & > > b = 2*m*n & > > c = n^2 + m^2)) > > > And I think this is better than distributing conjuncts > > over C like statements separated by semicolon ";". First > > of all because this language has already been 100-times > > formally introduces in logic books. > > Are you sure the way you have written it is really clearer? > > When you think about it - if I state that a series of propositions: > > A > B > C > D > > are individually true in some context, than it is exactly the same as > saying: > > A and B and C and D
Ignoring whitespace (which you should) the difference between yours and Jan's form is the difference between:
A ; B ; C ; D ;
A & B & C & D
The difference is in the choice of conjunction character and in whether it is a separator or terminator. These differences are really, really trivial.
The surest sign of a language design noob is a focus on syntax. Worry about the semantics instead; they're actually important.