Unfortunately, there is no such simple rule.
(A xor B xor C)
is not equivalent to
((A or B or C) and not (A and B and C))
Regards,
Florian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's worth noting that there are a number of logically equivalent expressions
that could be used to implement 'xor':
(A xor B) <=>
(A and not B) or (not A and B) <=>
(A or B) and (not A or not B) <=>
(A or B) and not (A and B)
The last form is particular felicitous for an n-way xor expressions since both
'or' and 'and' permit an unlimited number of values:
(and (or A B C ...) (not (and A B C ...)))
Regards,
Win
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Florian Fischer
Service d'Informatique Midicale
Htpitaux Universitaires de Genhve
Til: 022 37 28861
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
