12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2 (view source)
Revision as of 00:58, 10 September 2010
, 00:58, 10 September 2010→2.4.1. Syntactic Transformation Rules: continue reconciling versions
<br>
<br>
Conversely, any rule of this sort, properly qualified by the conditions under which it applies, can be turned back into a summary statement of the logical equivalence that is involved in its application. This mode of conversion a static principle and a transformational rule, that is, between a statement of equivalence and an equivalence of statements, is so automatic that it is usually not necessary to make a separate note of the "horizontal" versus the "vertical" versions.
Conversely, any rule of this sort, properly qualified by the conditions under which it applies, can be turned back into a summary statement of the logical equivalence that is involved in its application. This mode of conversion between a static principle and a transformational rule, in other words, between a statement of equivalence and an equivalence of statements, is so automatic that it is usually not necessary to make a separate note of the "horizontal" versus the "vertical" versions of what amounts to the same abstract principle.
As another example of a STR, consider the following logical equivalence, that holds for any <math>Q \subseteq X</math> and for all <math>x \in X.</math>
As another example of an STR, consider the following logical equivalence, that holds for any <math>Q \subseteq X</math> and for all <math>x \in X.</math>
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
