Mike wrote: > > On Apr 25, 11:45 am, Frederick Williams > <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > Shall I give up waiting for replies to > > > > news:4F8B2B06.4F74CB83@btinternet.com > > news:4F8AE29C.AA7B55C9@btinternet.com > > news:4F8AE76E.B989724@btinternet.com > > news:4F89DD3D.9A131853@btinternet.com > > > I think I may have answers for the questions you pose in the last two > of the these posts. I don't recognize the questions in the other two > posts. Or, the questions there are also posed in the last two. > > On Apr 15, 11:21 am, Frederick Williams > <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > you write > > > > Generally, I got f(p=>q)=delta(x_q - x_p) > > > > So it seems that f can take the value infinity. (If so, you need to say > > what kind of infinity. Are you dealing with a compactification of the > > reals?) Now, => can be defined in terms of not, AND and OR; and f of > > negations, conjunctions and disjunctions takes the values 0 and 1 (is > > that right?). So how do you reconcile the potential infinitude of f(p > > => q) with the stubborn 0 and 1-ness of f(combination of not, AND and > > OR)? > > > > I address this issue in Section 6, "LOGIC OF DIRAC DELTAS", on my > website at: > http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm
I'll read it and respond latter.
-- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting