Phil,
On 2 Aug 2011, at 16:26, Phil Clayton wrote:
> On 31/07/11 16:33, Rob Arthan wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2011, at 17:18, Rob Arthan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jul 2011, at 18:10, Phil Clayton wrote:
>>>
There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when
renami
On 31/07/11 16:33, Rob Arthan wrote:
Phil,
On 30 Jul 2011, at 17:18, Rob Arthan wrote:
On 28 Jul 2011, at 18:10, Phil Clayton wrote:
There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when
renaming of bound variables is required but the bound variables are
introduced by a schema
On 31/07/11 16:33, Rob Arthan wrote:
Phil,
On 30 Jul 2011, at 17:18, Rob Arthan wrote:
On 28 Jul 2011, at 18:10, Phil Clayton wrote:
There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when
renaming of bound variables is required but the bound variables are
introduced by a schema
Phil,
On 30 Jul 2011, at 17:18, Rob Arthan wrote:
>
> On 28 Jul 2011, at 18:10, Phil Clayton wrote:
>
>> There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when renaming
>> of bound variables is required but the bound variables are introduced by a
>> schema declaration.
>
> Yes. T
On 28 Jul 2011, at 18:10, Phil Clayton wrote:There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when renaming of bound variables is required but the bound variables are introduced by a schema declaration.Yes. This needs to be fixed.I'm guessing this is the reason that stripping is not wo
There appears to be a bug in z_%mem%_seta_conv (see attached) when
renaming of bound variables is required but the bound variables are
introduced by a schema declaration.
I'm guessing this is the reason that stripping is not working in my
proof (see attached). It looks trivial but I can't see
