Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] DimShip redo

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake bd:
> On Sunday 23 June 2002 10:12 pm, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > Thus spake bd:
> > > On Sunday 23 June 2002 9:55 pm, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > > > We might mean "A and not B", but it seems to be more at "A, and if =
> A
> > > > th=3D
> > >
> > > en=3D20
> > >
> > > > not B". That's logically equivalent to "A and B", though, which
> > > > indicat=3D
> > >
> > > es=3D20
> > >
> > > > that "lest" cannot be given a purely syntactic characterization.
> > >
> > > Umm... A =3D3D> not B logically precludes A and B.
> >
> > Oops. Typo. I meant "A and not B". Sheesh, and I'm the one who's the
> > logician.
> 
> Actually, A =3D> not B is equivalent to (A and (not B)) or (not A)

No, no. What I meant to say is that A & (A => ~B) is logically equivalent
to A & ~B, but not necessarily semantically equivalent. Hope that clears it
up.

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss