|
|
Re: SET THEORY and QUANTIFIER LOGIC are SUPERFLUOUS! You only need 1
or the other!
Posted:
Nov 22, 2012 4:12 PM
|
|
On Nov 21, 7:53 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 4:09 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The notation in
>
> > { x | p(x) }
>
> > stands for ALL VALUES OF x
> > that are satisfied in p(x)
>
> English is obviously not your native language.
> "x" IS NOT the KIND of thing THAT CAN *BE*satisfiED*.
> *x* is the kind of thing that CAN SATISFY.
> *p* is the kind of thing that can BE satisfied.
>
if you had a second set based on the first, say a nested forall.
{ x | xeBottles } C { x | xePrescription(S) }
ALL(x):B prescription(B,S)
prescription depends on S
ALL(S) ( ALL(x):B p(B) )
--------------
so you could nest 2 ALLS as transitive subsets.
{ S | s e S } C { x | x e B } C { x | x e P }
A(S) A(x) P(x)
in which case x is the same type as P - a predicate.
In prolog p(x(a(b))) only the leading predicate p is treated
differently in that it cannot be matched FORANY(p) to a variable.
Herc
|
|
