From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 09:01:34
On Thursday 05 September 2002 08:41 pm, David Bergman wrote:
> Your "forall"-scheme is a reasonable one, but is not valid when it comes
> to equivalence, since you would lose reflexivity... I actually could
> argue that it is not a good one when it comes to other congruence
> relations on the same grounds.
You could argue that, and you'd be right. I could also say again that it's the
correct semantics for my application, congruence relations be damned :)
I don't see how congruency relations can even be meaningfully applied when
we're talking about 3-state results, anyway. But I'm not a math guy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk