Posted per request of FL.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Operators
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:21:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: fl
To: Megill Norman 

Let's agree: of course the opinion that we should confine ourselvesto the 5 
classical operators for the formulation of the theorems. The study of the 
11 other ones should be limited to one particular section: for example to 
prove that all of them can be expressed with NANDs etc.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Parentheses
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:33:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: fl
To: Megill Norman

Hi Norm,

Can you post this and also my my former mail.

I also wonder why not writing "( Word s ) " because the absence of 
parentheses can lead to expressions difficult to read. Suppose for instance 
that t* is also a predicate and not a function, we might have expressions 
like: Word t* S = t* Word S (it's silly. It's just to have an example of 
syntactical giberish).

-- 
FFL

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/62f55270-2920-49ff-b22a-deee880784d8%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to