Re: Inference in daml

From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>

> > Which is your original inference rule. You can't state that directly
> > in DAML, because there is no predicate for "implies"[...]
>
> But can't you make use of logical equivalents? i.e. "p->q" has the same
> truth table as "q or not p" -- which can be expressed in daml.
>
> The question is, if you express the rule in that form (by defining a class
> of things that are q or not p and say that all things are members of that
> class) will a processor that correctly interprets the semantics of the
daml
> language necessarily interpret the rule as an implication?

An interesting question indeed ... here's another one ... why is there no
predicate for "implies" in DAML ?

Seth