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/
- References:
- logical/set theoretic programming
- From: Christopher Arthur <caa0012@unt.edu>
- logical/set theoretic programming