Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: "V.J. Kumar" <vjkmail@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:20:53 +0100 (CET)
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:12cnousl5msxh.1anmyqm356hwb$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx:
(in logic "uncertain" is usually denoted as _|_, flipped T)
In what logic ?
- True and False are (exclusive) specialization of TrueFalse by
inheritance. - Specialisation can be used to perform state complement
(logical NOT) because most specific specialisation are selected
first.
With these observations, it is easy to build logical tables with the
3 states by writing 4 specialisations (instead of 9).
Hmm, it should be 8.
= 2^3
2 = the depth of the type hierarchy
3 = the number of parameters within the same hierarchy (2 arguments +
the result)
When Boolean and TriState are related types and both arguments and the
result of AND are covariant then the dispatching table of AND will
have 8 slots:
AND : Boolean x Boolean -> Boolean
AND : Boolean x Boolean -> TriState
AND : Boolean x TriState -> Boolean
AND : Boolean x TriState -> TriState
AND : TriState x Boolean -> Boolean
AND : TriState x Boolean -> TriState
AND : TriState x TriState -> Boolean
AND : TriState x TriState -> TriState
Taking into account commutativity of AND, the number of distinct
signatures can be reduced to 6:
AND : Boolean x Boolean -> Boolean
AND : Boolean x Boolean -> TriState
AND : Boolean x TriState -> Boolean
== AND : TriState x Boolean -> Boolean
AND : Boolean x TriState -> TriState
== AND : TriState x Boolean -> TriState
AND : TriState x TriState -> Boolean
AND : TriState x TriState -> TriState
Because TriState is a generalization of Boolean (or equivalently
Boolean is a specialization of TriState)
AND : Boolean x Boolean -> Boolean
<= AND : Boolean x Boolean -> TriState
AND : Boolean x TriState -> Boolean
== AND : TriState x Boolean -> Boolean
AND : Boolean x TriState -> TriState
== AND : TriState x Boolean -> TriState
AND : TriState x TriState -> TriState
=> AND : TriState x TriState -> Boolean
Without implication, your three-valued logic is not fully specified.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- References:
- looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: Laurent Deniau
- Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: aloha.kakuikanu
- Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: Laurent Deniau
- Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Prev by Date: Re: Transaction Oriented Architecture (TOA)
- Next by Date: Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Previous by thread: Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Next by thread: Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading