Line 228: |
Line 228: |
| |} | | |} |
| | | |
− | <pre>
| + | It will be necessary to develop a more refined analysis of that statement directly, but that is roughly the nub of it. |
− | It will be necessary to develop a more refined analysis of | |
− | this statement directly, but that is roughly the nub of it.
| |
| | | |
− | If the form of the above statement reminds you of DeMorgan's rule, | + | If the form of the above statement reminds you of De Morgan's rule, it is no accident, as differentiation and negation turn out to be closely related operations. Indeed, one can find discussions of logical difference calculus in the Boole–De Morgan correspondence and Peirce also made use of differential operators in a logical context, but the exploration of these ideas has been hampered by a number of factors, not the least of which has been the lack of a syntax that was adequate to handle the complexity of expressions that evolve. |
− | it is no accident, as differentiation and negation turn out to be | |
− | closely related operations. Indeed, one can find discussions of | |
− | logical difference calculus in the Boole-DeMorgan correspondence | |
− | and Peirce also made use of differential operators in a logical | |
− | context, but the exploration of these ideas has been hampered | |
− | by a number of factors, not the least of which has been the | |
− | lack of a syntax that was up to handling the complexity of | |
− | the expressions that evolve.
| |
| | | |
− | Let us run through the initial example again, this time attempting | + | Let us run through the initial example again, this time attempting to interpret the formulas that develop at each stage along the way. |
− | to interpret the formulas that develop at each stage along the way. | |
| | | |
− | We begin with a proposition, or a boolean function, f<p, q> = pq. | + | We begin with a proposition or a boolean function <math>f(p, q) = pq.\!</math> |
| | | |
− | o-------------------------------------------------o
| + | {| align="center" cellpadding="10" |
− | | |
| + | | [[Image:Venn Diagram F = P And Q.jpg|500px]] |
− | | | | + | |- |
− | | o-----------o o-----------o | | + | | [[Image:Cactus Graph F = P And Q.jpg|500px]] |
− | | / \ / \ | | + | |} |
− | | / o \ |
| |
− | | / /%\ \ |
| |
− | | / /%%%\ \ |
| |
− | | o o%%%%%o o |
| |
− | | | |%%%%%| | |
| |
− | | | |%%%%%| | |
| |
− | | | P |% F %| Q | |
| |
− | | | |%%%%%| | | | |
− | | | |%%%%%| | |
| |
− | | o o%%%%%o o |
| |
− | | \ \%%%/ / |
| |
− | | \ \%/ / |
| |
− | | \ o / |
| |
− | | \ / \ / |
| |
− | | o-----------o o-----------o |
| |
− | | |
| |
− | | |
| |
− | o-------------------------------------------------o
| |
− | | |
| |
− | | p q |
| |
− | | @ |
| |
− | | |
| |
− | o-------------------------------------------------o
| |
− | | f = p q |
| |
− | o-------------------------------------------------o
| |
| | | |
| + | <pre> |
| A function like this has an abstract type and a concrete type. | | A function like this has an abstract type and a concrete type. |
| The abstract type is what we invoke when we write things like | | The abstract type is what we invoke when we write things like |