- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:26:10 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
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. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 04:31:42 UTC