- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:17:52 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:46:51 +0200 Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com> wrote: > <snip/> > > > 2- In the definition of Herbrand domain, it seems to me that the second > > and > > > third bullet are redundant, since they are implied by the first > > > > Why? These terms (mentioned in those bullets) are equal according to our > > semantics. How does it follow that they are equal in Herbrand structures if > > those bullets are not included? > > > > They are indeed equal to our semantics, so if t and s are such equal terms, > then TVal_I(s=t) must be true, so (s,t)\in E, by the first bullet. ah, ok. Still, I think it is worth reminding, so I made this into a remark rather than part of the definition. michael
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 17:18:28 UTC