[Om] logic1 CD revision?
paul at activemath.org
Thu Aug 17 15:22:32 CEST 2006
I would be looking forward for issue-report or attempts at correction on
the issue tracker:
Jacques Carette wrote:
> "the" logic??? Do you know how many two-valued boolean logics there are?
> You might mean "classical two-valued, first-order Boolean
> propositional logic".
> And while I am looking at it:
> 1) doesn't anyone see anything wrong with the FMP for 'equivalent'?
> It seems to use a circular definition.
> 2) the FMP (and CMP) for 'not' does not characterize 'not' as this FMP
> is also satisfied by the identity. The informal description is
> actually a better 'definition'.
> 3) in the same vein, the FMP for 'or', 'and' are not sufficient to
> uniquely define them either, as well as all being consequences of
> excluded-middle. So _all_ the FMPs in this CD turn out to be
> restatements of excluded-middle!
> 4) those FMPs use the forall quantifier, which is defined in quant1
> which depends on logic1.
> W Naylor wrote:
>> Clare is of course correct here. Would it be sufficient to change the
>> top level Description element to say:
>> This CD defines the operations of the two valued Boolean logic.
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Clare So wrote:
>>> Dear OpenMathers,
>>> I would like to suggest that logic1 CD may need a revision. The
>>> of it does not say whether the functions are for two-value logic or
>>> not. In
>>> some systems, three-value logic is used. It would be better if we
>>> state the
>>> meanings of each OMS as explicit as possible.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3245 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om/attachments/20060817/c8efc603/smime.bin
More information about the Om