Line 1,656: |
Line 1,656: |
| | | | | |
| <math>\begin{matrix} | | <math>\begin{matrix} |
− | \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))} | + | \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{))} |
| \\[4pt] | | \\[4pt] |
− | \texttt{(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))} | + | \texttt{(} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))} |
| \\[4pt] | | \\[4pt] |
− | \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))} | + | \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))} |
| \\[4pt] | | \\[4pt] |
− | \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))~(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))} | + | \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{)) (} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))} |
| \end{matrix}</math> | | \end{matrix}</math> |
| | | | | |
Line 1,683: |
Line 1,683: |
| | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (Q)).jpg|500px]] || (52) | | | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (Q)).jpg|500px]] || (52) |
| |- | | |- |
− | | <math>f_{207}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>f_{207}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{))}\!</math> |
| |- | | |- |
| | | | | |
Line 1,689: |
Line 1,689: |
| | [[Image:Venn Diagram (Q (R)).jpg|500px]] || (53) | | | [[Image:Venn Diagram (Q (R)).jpg|500px]] || (53) |
| |- | | |- |
− | | <math>f_{187}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>f_{187}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}\!</math> |
| |- | | |- |
| | | | | |
Line 1,695: |
Line 1,695: |
| | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (R)).jpg|500px]] || (54) | | | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (R)).jpg|500px]] || (54) |
| |- | | |- |
− | | <math>f_{175}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>f_{175}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}\!</math> |
| |- | | |- |
| | | | | |
Line 1,701: |
Line 1,701: |
| | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (Q)) (Q (R)).jpg|500px]] || (55) | | | [[Image:Venn Diagram (P (Q)) (Q (R)).jpg|500px]] || (55) |
| |- | | |- |
− | | <math>f_{139}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))~(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>f_{139}(p, q, r) ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{)) (} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}\!</math> |
| |} | | |} |
| | | |
Line 1,824: |
Line 1,824: |
| ~ q \le r | | ~ q \le r |
| \\ | | \\ |
− | \overline{15:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)15:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)15:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)} | + | \overline{~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~} |
| \\ | | \\ |
| ~ p \le r | | ~ p \le r |
Line 1,853: |
Line 1,853: |
| ~ q \le r | | ~ q \le r |
| \\ | | \\ |
− | =\!=\!=\!=\!=\!=\!=\!=
| + | \overline{\underline{~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~}} |
| \\ | | \\ |
| ~ p \le q \le r | | ~ p \le q \le r |
Line 1,921: |
Line 1,921: |
| |- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff" | | |- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff" |
| | <math>p \le q \le r\!</math> | | | <math>p \le q \le r\!</math> |
− | | <math>\texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>\texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{))}\!</math> |
− | | <math>\texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>\texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}\!</math> |
− | | <math>\texttt{(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}\!</math> | + | | <math>\texttt{(} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}\!</math> |
| |} | | |} |
| | | |
Line 2,431: |
Line 2,431: |
| In accord with my experimental way, I will stick with the case of transitive inference until I have pinned it down thoroughly, but of course the real interest is much more general than that. | | In accord with my experimental way, I will stick with the case of transitive inference until I have pinned it down thoroughly, but of course the real interest is much more general than that. |
| | | |
− | At first sight, the relationships seem easy enough to write out. Figure 75 shows how the various logical expressions are related to each other: The expressions <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> are conjoined in a purely syntactic fashion — much in the way that one might compile a theory from axioms without knowing what either the theory or the axioms were about — and the best way to sum up the state of information implicit in taking them together is just the expression <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{))~(} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))}{}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> that would the canonical result of an equational or reversible rule of inference. From that equational inference, one might arrive at the implicational inference <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{~(} r \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> by the most conventional implication. | + | At first sight, the relationships seem easy enough to write out. Figure 75 shows how the various logical expressions are related to each other: The expressions <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> are conjoined in a purely syntactic fashion — much in the way that one might compile a theory from axioms without knowing what either the theory or the axioms were about — and the best way to sum up the state of information implicit in taking them together is just the expression <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} q \texttt{)) (} q \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))}{}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> that would the canonical result of an equational or reversible rule of inference. From that equational inference, one might arrive at the implicational inference <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \texttt{(} p \texttt{ (} r \texttt{))} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> by the most conventional implication. |
| | | |
| {| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" | | {| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="10" |