Is this why I couldn't find implication in Julia? Maybe it was considered redundant because (1) it is less primitive than > "^", "v", "~", (2) it saves very little typing since "A => B" is equivalent > to "~A v B". – Giorgio > <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/users/29020/giorgio> Jan 18 '13 at > 14:50 > <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/184089/why-dont-languages-include-implication-as-a-logical-operator#comment353607_184089>
Wikipedia also says the implication table is identical to that of ~p | q. So instead just the below? julia> ~p | q false I'll take that. On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 4:08:00 PM UTC-3, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > (the version using ifelse benchmarks faster on my system) > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: >> >> here are two ways >> >> implies(p::Bool, q::Bool) = !(p & !q) >> >> implies(p::Bool, q::Bool) = ifelse(p, q, true) >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-4, Kevin Liu wrote: >>> >>> How is an implication represented in Julia? >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional#Definitions_of_the_material_conditional >>> >>
