- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:43:20 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: public-cwm-talk <public-cwm-talk@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 20:43:55 UTC
Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > It's not sound to go from > Exists x. P(x) -> Q(x) > P(a) > to > Q(a) That is indeed unsound but there is no such rule with an Exists x where x occurs in the conclusion. [...] > * - 30 > - @forAll :x1, :x2. @forSome :x0 . { :x0 c:says :x2; > c:speaks_for :x1 . } log:implies {:x1 c:says :x2 . } . > - erasure from step 29 > - in this rule :x0 does not occur in the conclusion We actually make sure that we have "no such rule with an Exists x where x occurs in the conclusion" in the latest eye code: [[ findall(V,(member(V,PVars), \+member(V,CVars)),PEVars) ]] -- http://eulersharp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/eulersharp/trunk/2006/02swap/euler.yap?r1=3226&r2=3225&pathrev=3226 Kind regards, Jos De Roo | Agfa HealthCare Senior Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research T +32 3444 7618 http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Quadrat NV, Kortrijksesteenweg 157, 9830 Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium http://www.agfa.com/healthcare
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 20:43:55 UTC