Re: How we say Same literals

 

     Le Samedi 27 décembre 2014 17h02, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> a écrit :
   

 If "the reader" is a user of a tool that needs to explain inconsistencies and not a person reviewing or reading a journal article, then explaining things in multiple steps is probably the right approach. and whether if a person reviewing or reading a journal article? what can I sayAfter explaining that the individual has too many values for the property, what the limit is, and where it came from, you can explain what the values of the property are, and where they came from.Finally you can explain that 'the string «"2"»' is not the same as 'the integer «2»'. It is probably not helpful to begin the explanation by saying that "leila is a person and not a person", which would be where the clash happens.  Explanations meant for human consumption need to be tested on humans. There is a lot of prior work on this topic from the 80s and 90s, which may serve as a guide. SimonP. S. Using Robinson's style of theorem proving, the terms could be said to be "irresolute". In tableaux approaches, this could be described as a "Sex Pistol". 😉[1][1] alethic modal could. I'm also not sure what you want specifically.

We know, by the predefined disjointness of the types that the values must be distinct and by the functionality that we must have only one successor. By the distinctness, we have two. Contradiction.

If you are trying to illustrate how values carry identity conditions, I wouldn't use values from disjoint types, but merely different values from the same type eg 1 and 2.

If you are trying to show that lexical form is datatype sensitive then yeah using same lexical form and disjoint datatype will do the trick.

Cheers,
Bijan.