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

From: Bruce C. Baker <bcb_at_undisclosedlocation.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:44:36 -0500
Message-ID: <WsCVh.17295$OT4.15608_at_newsfe19.lga>


"Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:K3CVh.2889$j63.1383_at_newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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) ? S(b) ??a E R,?R(a): ?b E S | ?S(b) | a=b
>> --Reference Unique
>> R(a) ? 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.

Allow me to second that request. In my newsreader the "squiggles" are rendered as hollow squares.

TIA
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
Received on Thu Apr 19 2007 - 06:44:36 CEST

Original text of this message