From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 10:31:03
If we get that formal, we could not apply "equivalence", or virtually
any of the terms we have used throughout this thread...
I think we are better off with translating the arguments into the
classical "true or false" world, in order to have nomenclature at all.
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Douglas Gregor
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators
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
correct semantics for my application, congruence relations be damned :)
I don't see how congruency relations can even be meaningfully applied
we're talking about 3-state results, anyway. But I'm not a math guy.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk