Re: A question about substitution principle

On 26 Sep 2005 03:23:00 -0700, ggroups@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> For the record, Bertrand Meyer uses a precise definition of "stronger"
> (that the great majority of people don't actually know) :
>
> X stronger-than Y = (X implies Y) AND NOT(X = Y)
>
> For those with the CS101 propositional logic skills, the stronger-than
> function is equivalent to :
>
> Y AND NOT(X)

I presume that just primary school skills should suffice. X is
stronger-that Y if and only if Y is not stronger-than-or-equal-to X. Which
is NOT (Y implies X), and here you are: Y AND NOT(X)!

> Or perhaps there is a contradiction (Circle/Ellipse anyone) . :-)

(:-))

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.

Relevant Pages

  • OT ~ Ping LK: Support for ObamaCare Falls to New Low
    ... citizens supported ObamaCare. ... to slide while a majority of those against the bills keeps ... 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care ... stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began." ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Gay lisp
    ... > most people will understand you to be implying something stronger than "not ... > reflecting the majority". ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Loosing money
    ... the player who is obviously much stronger wins the overwhelming ... majority of the 9 point matches, it must be rigged, right? ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)