Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects

Cimode wrote:
> I hope this may have some usefulness...
>
> 1) On a better formalization of reference definition, (subjects
> launched by Marshall)..I we came to the following formalization...
> (using math symbology I apologize in advance for being too terse)...
>
> --Reference
> R(a) レ S(b) ≡∀a E R,∀R(a): ∃b E S | ∃S(b) | a=b
> --Reference Unique
> R(a) ル S(b) ≡∀a E R,∀R(a): ∃!b E S | ∃!S(b) | a=b
>
> --> QUESTIONS: Do this still seem correct ?(In other words could it be
> refined/improved) what could be the next step onto using that
> definition?

I'm lost - please can you explain the squiggles (between R(a) and S(b) on the LHS of the equivalence) and the E, the !b and the !S(b)? Without knowing what those are, there is no way to answer your question.

-- 
Jonathan Leffler                   #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2007.0226 -- http://dbi.perl.org/