Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:25:11 GMT
Message-ID: <bls3l.290$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:5h83l.48993$mY6.41775_at_newsfe10.iad...

> A-algebra operators, just to remind, there are fundamentally only three of
> those, some of the ones typically used are merely derivations of those
> three, you can say there are four if TCLOSE is included), that allows a
> language implementation that is not only effective for some purpose, but
> closed for the desired expressions of that language.

Are the three fundamental ones <AND> <OR> & <NOT>?

If so, is it possible to define a <NAND> such that <AND> <OR> & <NOT> can be derived from <NAND>?

as in <NOT> A = A <NAND> A

etc.? Received on Sun Dec 21 2008 - 15:25:11 CET

Original text of this message