I wrote:
>
> Martin Baker wrote:
> >
> > For literal values I assume that:
> >
> > T = T
> > _|_ = _|_
> > undefined = undefined
> >
> > would all be true and all other combinations would be false?
> >
>
> That is problematic: intutionistic logic can not be faithfully
> represented by three values, you need infinitely many. Your
> table look correct if you treat 'undefined' as another variable,
> but if you want "values" for formulas with more then one
> variable, then finite number of values will not do.
>
Actually, the tables you gave describe something quite different
that intutionistic logic. For example, you have
- T = ?
- ? = ?
however in intutionistic logic - T is false and -(- T) = T.
Similarely, -x /\ x is false, but your tables give ?.
I wonder from which source you took your definitions?
Anyway, intutionistic logic must be corrected before we
commit it.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
