Re: problem with B1 B2

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> On further reflection, Jeremy's modified example is the killer.  I was
> trying to get by with too few roles, and inadvertently put in a way to get
> the equivalence.
> peter

I am not so sure about who is the victim of the 'killer'.

As far as I recall (not having reviewed my 'proof' recently) that is now 
dead. But I need to review the comprehension principles to understand 
whether it is the proof or the hypothesis that is flawed.

The old 'proof' needs the comprehension principles for intersectionOf and 
unionOf; I wonder if that technique can be extended to the rest of the 
'proof' and make it a proof.


Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 04:31:42 UTC