Changes

: <math>X \Rightarrow Y\ \operatorname{and}\ Y \Rightarrow Z.</math>

: <math>X \Rightarrow Y\ \operatorname{and}\ Y \Rightarrow Z.</math>

Here, there is a happy conformity between the logical content and the rhetorical form, indeed, to such a degree that one hardly notices the difference between them.  The rhetorical form is given by the order of sentences in the two implications and the order of implications in the conjunction.  The logical content is given by the order of propositions in the extended implicational sequence:

Here, there is a happy conformity between the logical content and the

rhetorical form, indeed, to such a degree that one hardly notices the

difference between them.  The rhetorical form is given by the order

of sentences in the two implications and the order of implications

in the conjunction.  The logical content is given by the order of

propositions in the extended implicational sequence:

X =<  Y =<  Z.

: <math>X\ \le\ Y\ \le\ Z.</math>

To see the difference between form and content, or manner and matter,

To see the difference between form and content, or manner and matter, it is enough to observe a few of the ways that the expression can be varied without changing its meaning, for example:

it is enough to observe a few of the ways that the expression can be

varied without changing its meaning, for example:

"Z <= Y and Y <= X".

: <math>Z \Leftarrow Y\ \operatorname{and}\ Y \Leftarrow X.</math>

Any style of declarative programming, also called "logic programming",

Any style of declarative programming, also called ''logic programming'', depends on a capacity, as embodied in a programming language or other formal system, to describe the relation between problems and solutions in logical terms.  A recurring problem in building this capacity is in bridging the gap between ostensibly non-logical orders and the logical orders that are used to describe and to represent them.  For instance, to mention just a couple of the most pressing cases, and the ones that are currently proving to be the most resistant to a complete analysis, one has the orders of dynamic evolution and rhetorical transition that manifest themselves in the process of inquiry and in the communication of its results.

depends on a capacity, as embodied in a programming language or other

formal system, to describe the relation between problems and solutions

in logical terms.  A recurring problem in building this capacity is in

bridging the gap between ostensibly non-logical orders and the logical

orders that are used to describe and to represent them.  For instance,

to mention just a couple of the most pressing cases, and the ones that

are currently proving to be the most resistant to a complete analysis,

one has the orders of dynamic evolution and rhetorical transition that

manifest themselves in the process of inquiry and in the communication

of its results.

This patch of the ongoing discussion is concerned with describing a

This patch of the ongoing discussion is concerned with describing a

particular variety of formal languages, whose typical representative

particular variety of formal languages, whose typical representative