Changes

would account for the finite protocol of states that we observed the system <math>X\!</math> passing through, as spied in the light of its boolean state variable <math>x : X \to \mathbb{B},</math> and that rule is well-formulated in any of these styles of notation:

would account for the finite protocol of states that we observed the system <math>X\!</math> passing through, as spied in the light of its boolean state variable <math>x : X \to \mathbb{B},</math> and that rule is well-formulated in any of these styles of notation:

1.1. f : B -> B such that f : x ~> (x)

| 1.1. || <math>f : \mathbb{B} \to \mathbb{B}</math> such that <math>f : x \mapsto \underline{(}~ x ~\underline{)}</math>

| 1.2. || <math>x' ~=~ \underline{(}~ x ~\underline{)}</math>

In the current example, we already know in advance the program that generates the state transitions, and it is a rule of the following equivalent and easily derivable forms:

 

 

 

In the current example, having read the manual first,

I guess, we already know in advance the program that

generates the state transitions, and it is a rule of

the following equivalent and easily derivable forms:

2.1.  F : B^2 -> B^2 such that F : <u, v> ~> <((u)(v)), ((u, v))>

2.1.  F : B^2 -> B^2 such that F : <u, v> ~> <((u)(v)), ((u, v))>