
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

