[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: logical/set theoretic programming
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg74036] Re: [mg74024] logical/set theoretic programming
*From*: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
*Date*: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 03:09:48 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <200703061032.FAA02208@smc.vnet.net>
Whatever the rule is, you can supply it as a TransformationFunctions
option to Simplify.
On 3/6/07, Christopher Arthur <caa0012 at unt.edu> wrote:
> Hello, any suggestions on how to program set theory?
> Suppose that I have a notation set up well, and I have a set of rules
> of implication. The next step is to teach mathemania how to compute...
> For example, I define a notation for AbstractComplement[X,A], and I
> want to associate it with it the rule
> Implies[Subset[A,X]&&Element[x,A],!Element[x,AbstractComplement[X,A]].
> In other words, a point can't be in a subset and its complement. My
> feeling is that alone this rule should be enough to decide the
> falsehood of a statement such as
> Subset[B,W]&&Exists[y,Element[y,B]&&Element[y,AbstractComplement[W,B]]
>
> where in this case i've purposefully changed the variables because i
> don't want to tie the rule to any particular symbols. How can we set
> up Simplify,Reduce,Refine or something similar to decide on this rule?
> Especially, without having to make the rule explicit in the expression
> to simplify. Christopher Arthur
> Student, Mathematics
> University of North Texas
>
>
--
http://chris.chiasson.name/
Prev by Date:
**Re: Replacing list elements while retaining structure**
Next by Date:
**analytic integration of InterpolatingFunction compositions**
Previous by thread:
**logical/set theoretic programming**
Next by thread:
**Re: logical/set theoretic programming**
| |