Line 2,544: |
Line 2,544: |
| ===Cactus Language=== | | ===Cactus Language=== |
| | | |
− | <pre>
| + | '''Note.''' Need to find the original context of this fragment. |
− | Table 13 illustrates the "existential interpretation" | + | |
− | of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing | + | Table 13 illustrates the ''existential interpretation'' of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms. |
− | English translations for a few of the most basic and | + | |
− | commonly occurring forms. | + | Even though I do most of my thinking in the existential interpretation, I will continue to speak of these forms as ''logical graphs'', because I think it is an important fact about them that the formal validity of the axioms and theorems is not dependent on the choice between the entitative and the existential interpretations. |
| | | |
− | Even though I do most of my thinking in the existential interpretation,
| + | The first extension is the ''reflective extension of logical graphs'' (RefLog). It is obtained by generalizing the negation operator "<math>\texttt{(~)}</math>" in a certain way, calling "<math>\texttt{(~)}</math>" the ''controlled'', ''moderated'', or ''reflective'' negation operator of order 1, then adding another such operator for each finite <math>k = 2, 3, \ldots .</math> |
− | I will continue to speak of these forms as "logical graphs", because
| |
− | I think it is an important fact about them that the formal validity
| |
− | of the axioms and theorems is not dependent on the choice between | |
− | the entitative and the existential interpretations.
| |
| | | |
− | The first extension is the "reflective extension of logical graphs" (RefLog).
| + | In sum, these operators are symbolized by bracketed argument lists as follows: "<math>\texttt{(~)}</math>", "<math>\texttt{(~,~)}</math>", "<math>\texttt{(~,~,~)}</math>", …, where the number of slots is the order of the reflective negation operator in question. |
− | It is obtained by generalizing the negation operator "(_)" in a certain way,
| |
− | calling "(_)" the "controlled", "moderated", or "reflective" negation operator
| |
− | of order 1, then adding another such operator for each finite k = 2, 3, ... .
| |
− | In sum, these operators are symbolized by bracketed argument lists as follows: | |
− | "(_)", "(_,_)", "(_,_,_)", ..., where the number of slots is the order of the | |
− | reflective negation operator in question. | |
| | | |
− | The cactus graph and the cactus expression | + | The cactus graph and the cactus expression shown here are both described as a ''spike''. |
− | shown here are both described as a "spike". | |
| | | |
| + | {| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%" |
| + | | align="center" | |
| + | <pre> |
| o---------------------------------------o | | o---------------------------------------o |
| | | | | | | |
Line 2,576: |
Line 2,568: |
| | ( ) | | | | ( ) | |
| o---------------------------------------o | | o---------------------------------------o |
| + | </pre> |
| + | |} |
| | | |
| The rule of reduction for a lobe is: | | The rule of reduction for a lobe is: |
| | | |
| + | {| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%" |
| + | | align="center" | |
| + | <pre> |
| x_1 x_2 ... x_k | | x_1 x_2 ... x_k |
| o-----o--- ... ---o | | o-----o--- ... ---o |
Line 2,590: |
Line 2,587: |
| \ / | | \ / |
| @ = @ | | @ = @ |
| + | </pre> |
| + | |} |
| | | |
| if and only if exactly one of the x_j is a spike. | | if and only if exactly one of the x_j is a spike. |
| | | |
| + | <pre> |
| In Ref Log, an expression of the form "(( e_1 ),( e_2 ),( ... ),( e_k ))" | | In Ref Log, an expression of the form "(( e_1 ),( e_2 ),( ... ),( e_k ))" |
| expresses the fact that "exactly one of the e_j is true, for j = 1 to k". | | expresses the fact that "exactly one of the e_j is true, for j = 1 to k". |