- Original Message -
From: Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: About the abuse of forall in Haskell
>
> > May 03, 2000 12:
Wed, 3 May 2000 13:04:32 +0200, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> So I looked to the example below:
>
> forall x . x + a > x is not true , however forall x. x + a >= x is true,
If "a" is 1, then the first is true too.
> > runST :: forall a. (forall s. ST s a) -> a
> >
> > It means
> May 03, 2000 12:53 AM Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Tue, 2 May 2000 22:47:08 +0200, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > First I want to end this with the following observation : if the
> > forall in ( forall s1 . ST s1 T(s) ) really had the meaning
> > of the logical forall
Tue, 2 May 2000 22:47:08 +0200, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> First I want to end this with the following observation : if the
> forall in ( forall s1 . ST s1 T(s) ) really had the meaning
> of the logical forall , that is if " forall s1 . ST s1 T(s)
> is true then the case
Hi,
1. First I think , even if it is a bit boring, to rehearse
some basic logical notions. I have based my logic course on the
logic
of N. Bourbaki : Theory of Sets. In this completely formal
logic the quantifiers "exists" and
"forall" are constructed as follows:
One introduces in the
