Re: What to call this operator?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:37:37 GMT
Message-ID: <B%Awe.119303$El.12681_at_pd7tw1no>
>
>
> Or, to put it more simply, "a is true or b is true". Whereas the result
> of an <and> operation is interpreted as "a is true and b is true".
>
>
>
>
> In theory, domains can be infinite, so the theory has to take that into
> account. In an implementation, domains are always finite, of course---
> though they are most likely large enough that it is impractical to
> materialise the results of such <or> invocations (or <not>s, of course).
> I don't really understand your objection, though.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:37:37 GMT
Message-ID: <B%Awe.119303$El.12681_at_pd7tw1no>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <ESjwe.1820496$Xk.1729912_at_pd7tw3no>, toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac
> says...
>
>>to put it another way, if the result of <or> happens to be <a,b> i can >>interpret the result as: >> >>a is true and b is true >>or (in the more common sense, not the D&D <or>) >>a is true and b is false >>or >>a is false and b is true >> >>but not "a is false and b is false".
>
>
> Or, to put it more simply, "a is true or b is true". Whereas the result
> of an <and> operation is interpreted as "a is true and b is true".
>
>
>>still, i can't get it through my head why it is important to allow >>infinite domains. granted that results for finite domains could still >>be very large, but othertimes they could be very small!
>
>
> In theory, domains can be infinite, so the theory has to take that into
> account. In an implementation, domains are always finite, of course---
> though they are most likely large enough that it is impractical to
> materialise the results of such <or> invocations (or <not>s, of course).
> I don't really understand your objection, though.
i probably don't understand it either. my objection might be merely psychological, being used to programs to that finish sooner or later.
another thing that intrigues me about D&D <or> (now that Mikito has corrected my interpretation of it) is that maybe it is a way to expose (perhaps i should say materialize?) a domain.
p Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 19:37:37 CEST