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

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:4627ac75$0$328$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Bruce C. Baker wrote:

>> Jonathan Leffler wrote:
>>> 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
>

Hey! No cheap shots at OE's expense! :-D True, it's not great, but it's usually good enough for both email and newsgroups.

Thanks for the link.

>