- 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