On Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:43 PM the ever-sharp Bill Briggs noted
At 12:33 PM -0600 6/29/06, Grant Hogarth, self-professed pedant, wrote:
GH>>To build still further on Eric's excellent discourse:
GH>>There also exists the possibility of a conditional dependency of
GH>>       E.g. "If your book wins a Pulitzer, [then] you
GH>>             [will/can/must/shall/may/ought to/...] celebrate..."
GH>>- If A, then B     (explicit consequence, implied (but not required)
GH>>- If A and B       (explicit connection, both elements required)
GH>>- If A, and then B (explicit consequence, conditions must occur 
GH>>in fixed order)
GH>>- If A, B          (explict set construction with tacit connection, 
GH>>but no required sequence)
GH>>In the first three of these, the time separation element is implied 
GH>>as a requirement;

web> Sorry, but that's not so. 

I will grant you that it's not mathematically *complete* <g>

web> My example in a previous message has no time element and 
web> satisfies the first just fine thank you. It's not necessary that
these things are sequences of instructions, they can be existing
conditions, which is how the constructs arise in logic and in
programming any kind of logic based system.

 Further, the first instance is a complete notion. The second and third
are not and require a consequence to complete the statement. The last is
totally unclear to me. Is it "if A and B" or "if A or B" or "if A given
B" or something else? It is not possible to ascertain from what you've

- web

Reply via email to