
Re: On Generalizing the Natural Numbers
Posted:
Nov 25, 2012 9:43 PM


On Nov 26, 11:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 26, 3:37 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > On Nov 24, 6:59 pm, CharlieBoo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Define ADD(a,b,c) as a+b=c > > > > For any relation P(,) defind P(I,x) as the > > > process of inputting a value for I and outputting all values for x > > > that are in that relation, where I in general is any number of > > > components with values I, J, K, . .. and x is x, y, z, ... That is, > > > R(I,x) = { x  R(I,x) is true.}
...
> > I think pred(X, a, b, c) <=> { X  pred(X, a, b, c) } > > might be a more natural convention, X is argument 1. >
There seems to be scope for a PREDICATE CALCULUS II with {set notation} instead of using e(X,Y).
This reminds me of an article about development of the XML REQUEST object that I was reading..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest The World Wide Web Consortium published a Working Draft specification for the XMLHttpRequest object on April 5, 2006, edited by Anne van Kesteren of Opera Software and Dean Jackson of W3C.[17]
Its goal is "to document a minimum set of interoperable features based on existing implementations, allowing Web developers to use these features without platformspecific code."

It could be worth setting up a LOGIC CONSORTIUM of our own to define the notation standard of PC2
I should be able to extend PROLOG to run Queries in this form..
all( X , less(X,10) , add( X, {2,3,4}, 20) )
^ ^ DOMAIN SUPERSET    TERM  QUANTIFIER
this is not yet compatible with Charlie's Method!
Herc

