Difference between revisions of "Directory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Differential Logic : Introduction"
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (→Logical Cacti: copy partial markup) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (→Original Version: markup) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
====Original Version==== | ====Original Version==== | ||
− | + | Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax, honing the syntax of ''painted and rooted cacti and expressions'' (PARCAE), and turning it to use in taming the syntax of two-level formal languages. | |
− | Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax, | ||
− | honing the syntax of | ||
− | and turning it to use in taming the syntax of two-level formal languages. | ||
− | But the purpose of a logical syntax is to support a logical semantics, | + | But the purpose of a logical syntax is to support a logical semantics, which means, for starters, to bear interpretation as sentential signs that can denote objective propositions about some universe of objects. |
− | which means, for starters, to bear interpretation as sentential signs | ||
− | that can denote objective propositions about some universe of objects. | ||
− | One of the difficulties that we face in this discussion is that the | + | One of the difficulties that we face in this discussion is that the words ''interpretation'', ''meaning'', ''semantics'', and so on will have so many different meanings from one moment to the next of their use. A dedicated neologician might be able to think up distinctive names for all of the aspects of meaning and all of the approaches to them that will concern us here, but I will just have to do the best that I can with the common lot of ambiguous terms, leaving it to context and the intelligent interpreter to sort it out as much as possible. |
− | words | ||
− | so many different meanings from one moment to the next of their use. | ||
− | A dedicated neologician might be able to think up distinctive names | ||
− | for all of the aspects of meaning and all of the approaches to them | ||
− | that will concern us here, but I will just have to do the best that | ||
− | I can with the common lot of ambiguous terms, leaving it to context | ||
− | and the intelligent interpreter to sort it out as much as possible. | ||
− | As it happens, the language of cacti is so abstract that it can bear | + | As it happens, the language of cacti is so abstract that it can bear at least two different interpretations as logical sentences denoting logical propositions. The two interpretations that I know about are descended from the ones that Charles Sanders Peirce called the ''entitative'' and the ''existential'' interpretations of his systems of graphical logics. For our present aims, I shall briefly introduce the alternatives and then quickly move to the existential interpretation of logical cacti. |
− | at least two different interpretations as logical sentences denoting | ||
− | logical propositions. The two interpretations that I know about are | ||
− | descended from the ones that | ||
− | the | ||
− | For our present aims, I shall briefly introduce the alternatives and | ||
− | then quickly move to the existential interpretation of logical cacti. | ||
− | Table 13 illustrates the | + | Table 13 illustrates the existential interpretation of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms. |
− | of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing | ||
− | English translations for a few of the most basic and | ||
− | commonly occurring forms. | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
Table 13. The Existential Interpretation | Table 13. The Existential Interpretation | ||
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | ||
Line 139: | Line 119: | ||
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
− | Table 14 illustrates the | + | Table 14 illustrates the entitative interpretation of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms. |
− | of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing | ||
− | English translations for a few of the most basic and | ||
− | commonly occurring forms. | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
Table 14. The Entitative Interpretation | Table 14. The Entitative Interpretation | ||
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | ||
Line 240: | Line 219: | ||
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
− | For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are | + | For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are the ideas that the compositional structure of cactus graphs and expressions can be articulated in terms of two different kinds of connective operations, and that there are two distinct ways of mapping this compositional structure into the compositional structure of propositional sentences, say, in English: |
− | the ideas that the compositional structure of cactus graphs and expressions | ||
− | can be articulated in terms of two different kinds of connective operations, | ||
− | and that there are two distinct ways of mapping this compositional structure | ||
− | into the compositional structure of propositional sentences, say, in English: | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
1. The "node connective" joins a number of | 1. The "node connective" joins a number of | ||
component cacti C_1, ..., C_k at a node: | component cacti C_1, ..., C_k at a node: | ||
Line 263: | Line 240: | ||
\ / | \ / | ||
@ | @ | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
− | Table 15 summarizes the existential and entitative | + | Table 15 summarizes the existential and entitative interpretations of the primitive cactus structures, in effect, the graphical constants and connectives. |
− | interpretations of the primitive cactus structures, | ||
− | in effect, the graphical constants and connectives. | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
Table 15. Existential & Entitative Interpretations of Cactus Structures | Table 15. Existential & Entitative Interpretations of Cactus Structures | ||
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | ||
Line 298: | Line 275: | ||
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
− | It is possible to specify | + | It is possible to specify ''abstract rules of equivalence'' (AROEs) between cacti, rules for transforming one cactus into another that are ''formal'' in the sense of being indifferent to the above choices for logical or semantic interpretations, and that partition the set of cacti into formal equivalence classes. |
− | between cacti, rules for transforming one cactus into another that | ||
− | are | ||
− | for logical or semantic interpretations, and that partition the set | ||
− | of cacti into formal equivalence classes. | ||
− | A | + | A ''reduction'' is an equivalence transformation that is applied in the direction of decreasing graphical complexity. |
− | that is applied in the direction of decreasing | ||
− | graphical complexity. | ||
− | A | + | A ''basic reduction'' is a reduction that applies to one of the two families of basic connectives. |
− | to one of the two families of basic connectives. | ||
− | Table 16 schematizes the two types of basic reductions | + | Table 16 schematizes the two types of basic reductions in a purely formal, interpretation-independent fashion. |
− | in a purely formal, interpretation-independent fashion. | ||
+ | <pre> | ||
Table 16. Basic Reductions | Table 16. Basic Reductions | ||
o---------------------------------------o | o---------------------------------------o | ||
Line 342: | Line 313: | ||
| | | | | | ||
o---------------------------------------o | o---------------------------------------o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
− | The careful reader will have noticed that we have begun to use | + | The careful reader will have noticed that we have begun to use graphical paints like "a", "b", "c" and schematic proxies like "C_1", "C_j", "C_k" in a variety of novel and unjustified ways. |
− | graphical paints like "a", "b", "c" and schematic proxies like | ||
− | "C_1", "C_j", "C_k" in a variety of novel and unjustified ways. | ||
− | The careful writer would have already introduced a whole bevy of | + | The careful writer would have already introduced a whole bevy of technical concepts and proved a whole crew of formal theorems to justify their use before contemplating this stage of development, but I have been hurrying to proceed with the informal exposition, and this expedition must leave steps to the reader's imagination. |
− | technical concepts and proved a whole crew of formal theorems to | ||
− | justify their use before contemplating this stage of development, | ||
− | but I have been hurrying to proceed with the informal exposition, | ||
− | and this expedition must leave steps to the reader's imagination. | ||
− | Of course I mean the | + | Of course I mean the ''active imagination''. So let me assist the prospective exercise with a few hints of what it would take to guarantee that these practices make sense. |
− | So let me assist the prospective exercise | ||
− | with a few hints of what it would take to | ||
− | guarantee that these practices make sense. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
====Partial Markup==== | ====Partial Markup==== |
Revision as of 21:40, 29 June 2009
Place for Discussion
…
Work Area
Logical Cacti
- Theme One Program — Logical Cacti
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/thread.html#2348
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002360.html
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002361.html
Original Version
Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax, honing the syntax of painted and rooted cacti and expressions (PARCAE), and turning it to use in taming the syntax of two-level formal languages.
But the purpose of a logical syntax is to support a logical semantics, which means, for starters, to bear interpretation as sentential signs that can denote objective propositions about some universe of objects.
One of the difficulties that we face in this discussion is that the words interpretation, meaning, semantics, and so on will have so many different meanings from one moment to the next of their use. A dedicated neologician might be able to think up distinctive names for all of the aspects of meaning and all of the approaches to them that will concern us here, but I will just have to do the best that I can with the common lot of ambiguous terms, leaving it to context and the intelligent interpreter to sort it out as much as possible.
As it happens, the language of cacti is so abstract that it can bear at least two different interpretations as logical sentences denoting logical propositions. The two interpretations that I know about are descended from the ones that Charles Sanders Peirce called the entitative and the existential interpretations of his systems of graphical logics. For our present aims, I shall briefly introduce the alternatives and then quickly move to the existential interpretation of logical cacti.
Table 13 illustrates the existential interpretation of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms.
Table 13. The Existential Interpretation o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | Ex | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Existential | | | | | Interpretation | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | 1 | @ | " " | true. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 2 | @ | ( ) | untrue. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a | | | | 3 | @ | a | a. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 4 | @ | (a) | not a. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | 5 | @ | a b c | a and b and c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o o o | | | | | \|/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 6 | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a or b or c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | | | a implies b. | | | a b | | | | | o---o | | if a then b. | | | | | | | | 7 | @ | ( a (b)) | no a sans b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b | | | | | o---o | | a exclusive-or b. | | | \ / | | | | 8 | @ | ( a , b ) | a not equal to b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b | | | | | o---o | | | | | \ / | | | | | o | | a if & only if b. | | | | | | | | 9 | @ | (( a , b )) | a equates with b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | just one false | | 10 | @ | ( a , b , c ) | out of a, b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o o o | | | | | | | | | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | just one true | | 11 | @ | ((a),(b),(c)) | among a, b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | | | genus a over | | | b c | | species b, c. | | | o o | | | | | a | | | | partition a | | | o--o--o | | among b & c. | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | whole pie a: | | 12 | @ | ( a ,(b),(c)) | slices b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
Table 14 illustrates the entitative interpretation of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms.
Table 14. The Entitative Interpretation o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | En | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Entitative | | | | | Interpretation | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | 1 | @ | " " | untrue. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 2 | @ | ( ) | true. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a | | | | 3 | @ | a | a. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 4 | @ | (a) | not a. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | 5 | @ | a b c | a or b or c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o o o | | | | | \|/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | 6 | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a and b and c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | | | a implies b. | | | | | | | | o a | | if a then b. | | | | | | | | 7 | @ b | (a) b | not a, or b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b | | | | | o---o | | a if & only if b. | | | \ / | | | | 8 | @ | ( a , b ) | a equates with b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b | | | | | o---o | | | | | \ / | | | | | o | | a exclusive-or b. | | | | | | | | 9 | @ | (( a , b )) | a not equal to b. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | not just one true | | 10 | @ | ( a , b , c ) | out of a, b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a b c | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | | | | o | | | | | | | | just one true | | 11 | @ | (( a , b , c )) | among a, b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a | | | | | o | | genus a over | | | | b c | | species b, c. | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | partition a | | | \ / | | among b & c. | | | o | | | | | | | | whole pie a: | | 12 | @ | (((a), b , c )) | slices b, c. | | | | | | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are the ideas that the compositional structure of cactus graphs and expressions can be articulated in terms of two different kinds of connective operations, and that there are two distinct ways of mapping this compositional structure into the compositional structure of propositional sentences, say, in English:
1. The "node connective" joins a number of component cacti C_1, ..., C_k at a node: C_1 ... C_k @ 2. The "lobe connective" joins a number of component cacti C_1, ..., C_k to a lobe: C_1 C_2 C_k o---o-...-o \ / \ / \ / \ / @
Table 15 summarizes the existential and entitative interpretations of the primitive cactus structures, in effect, the graphical constants and connectives.
Table 15. Existential & Entitative Interpretations of Cactus Structures o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | Cactus Graph | Cactus String | Existential | Entitative | | | | Interpretation | Interpretation | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | @ | " " | true | false | | | | | | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | | @ | ( ) | false | true | | | | | | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | C_1 ... C_k | | | | | @ | C_1 ... C_k | C_1 & ... & C_k | C_1 v ... v C_k | | | | | | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | C_1 C_2 C_k | | Just one | Not just one | | o---o-...-o | | | | | \ / | | of the C_j, | of the C_j, | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | j = 1 to k, | j = 1 to k, | | \ / | | | | | @ | (C_1, ..., C_k) | is not true. | is true. | | | | | | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
It is possible to specify abstract rules of equivalence (AROEs) between cacti, rules for transforming one cactus into another that are formal in the sense of being indifferent to the above choices for logical or semantic interpretations, and that partition the set of cacti into formal equivalence classes.
A reduction is an equivalence transformation that is applied in the direction of decreasing graphical complexity.
A basic reduction is a reduction that applies to one of the two families of basic connectives.
Table 16 schematizes the two types of basic reductions in a purely formal, interpretation-independent fashion.
Table 16. Basic Reductions o---------------------------------------o | | | C_1 ... C_k | | @ = @ | | | | if and only if | | | | C_j = @ for all j = 1 to k | | | o---------------------------------------o | | | C_1 C_2 C_k | | o---o-...-o | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | @ = @ | | | | if and only if | | | | o | | | | | C_j = @ for exactly one j in [1, k] | | | o---------------------------------------o
The careful reader will have noticed that we have begun to use graphical paints like "a", "b", "c" and schematic proxies like "C_1", "C_j", "C_k" in a variety of novel and unjustified ways.
The careful writer would have already introduced a whole bevy of technical concepts and proved a whole crew of formal theorems to justify their use before contemplating this stage of development, but I have been hurrying to proceed with the informal exposition, and this expedition must leave steps to the reader's imagination.
Of course I mean the active imagination. So let me assist the prospective exercise with a few hints of what it would take to guarantee that these practices make sense.
Partial Markup
Table 13 illustrates the existential interpretation of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing English translations for a few of the most basic and commonly occurring forms.
Even though I do most of my thinking in the existential interpretation, I will continue to speak of these forms as logical graphs, because I think it is an important fact about them that the formal validity of the axioms and theorems is not dependent on the choice between the entitative and the existential interpretations.
The first extension is the reflective extension of logical graphs (RefLog). It is obtained by generalizing the negation operator "\(\texttt{(~)}\)" in a certain way, calling "\(\texttt{(~)}\)" the controlled, moderated, or reflective negation operator of order 1, then adding another such operator for each finite \(k = 2, 3, \ldots .\)
In sum, these operators are symbolized by bracketed argument lists as follows: "\(\texttt{(~)}\)", "\(\texttt{(~,~)}\)", "\(\texttt{(~,~,~)}\)", …, where the number of slots is the order of the reflective negation operator in question.
The cactus graph and the cactus expression shown here are both described as a spike.
o---------------------------------------o | | | o | | | | | @ | | | o---------------------------------------o | ( ) | o---------------------------------------o |
The rule of reduction for a lobe is:
o---------------------------------------o | | | x_1 x_2 ... x_k | | o-----o--- ... ---o | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | @ = @ | | | o---------------------------------------o |
if and only if exactly one of the \(x_j\!\) is a spike.
In Ref Log, an expression of the form \(\texttt{((}~ e_1 ~\texttt{),(}~ e_2 ~\texttt{),(}~ \ldots ~\texttt{),(}~ e_k ~\texttt{))}\) expresses the fact that exactly one of the \(e_j\!\) is true. Expressions of this form are called universal partition expressions, and they parse into a type of graph called a painted and rooted cactus (PARC):
o---------------------------------------o | | | e_1 e_2 ... e_k | | o o o | | | | | | | o-----o--- ... ---o | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | @ | | | o---------------------------------------o |
o---------------------------------------o | | | ( x1, x2, ..., xk ) = [blank] | | | | iff | | | | Just one of the arguments | | x1, x2, ..., xk = () | | | o---------------------------------------o |
The interpretation of these operators, read as assertions about the values of their listed arguments, is as follows:
Existential Interpretation: | Just one of the k argument is false. |
Entitative Interpretation: | Not just one of the k arguments is true. |
o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | Graph | String | Translation | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | @ | " " | true. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ( ) | untrue. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r | | | | @ | r | r. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | (r) | not r. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s t | | | | @ | r s t | r and s and t. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s t | | | | o o o | | | | \|/ | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ((r)(s)(t)) | r or s or t. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | r implies s. | | r s | | | | o---o | | if r then s. | | | | | | | @ | (r (s)) | no r sans s. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s | | | | o---o | | r exclusive-or s. | | \ / | | | | @ | (r , s) | r not equal to s. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s | | | | o---o | | | | \ / | | | | o | | r if & only if s. | | | | | | | @ | ((r , s)) | r equates with s. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s t | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | just one false | | @ | (r , s , t) | out of r, s, t. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | r s t | | | | o o o | | | | | | | | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | just one true | | @ | ((r),(s),(t)) | among r, s, t. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | genus t over | | r s | | species r, s. | | o o | | | | t | | | | partition t | | o--o--o | | among r & s. | | \ / | | | | \ / | | whole pie t: | | @ | ( t ,(r),(s)) | slices r, s. | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o |
Table 13. The Existential Interpretation o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Existential | | | | Interpretation | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | @ | " " | true. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ( ) | untrue. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a | | | | @ | a | a. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | (a) | not a. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | @ | a b c | a and b and c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o o o | | | | \|/ | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a or b or c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a implies b. | | a b | | | | o---o | | if a then b. | | | | | | | @ | (a (b)) | no a sans b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b | | | | o---o | | a exclusive-or b. | | \ / | | | | @ | (a , b) | a not equal to b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b | | | | o---o | | | | \ / | | | | o | | a if & only if b. | | | | | | | @ | ((a , b)) | a equates with b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | just one false | | @ | (a , b , c) | out of a, b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o o o | | | | | | | | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | just one true | | @ | ((a),(b),(c)) | among a, b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | genus a over | | b c | | species b, c. | | o o | | | | a | | | | partition a | | o--o--o | | among b & c. | | \ / | | | | \ / | | whole pie a: | | @ | ( a ,(b),(c)) | slices b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o |
Table 14. The Entitative Interpretation o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Entitative | | | | Interpretation | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | @ | " " | untrue. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ( ) | true. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a | | | | @ | a | a. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | (a) | not a. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | @ | a b c | a or b or c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o o o | | | | \|/ | | | | o | | | | | | | | | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a and b and c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | | | a implies b. | | | | | | o a | | if a then b. | | | | | | | @ b | (a) b | not a, or b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b | | | | o---o | | a if & only if b. | | \ / | | | | @ | (a , b) | a equates with b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b | | | | o---o | | | | \ / | | | | o | | a exclusive-or b. | | | | | | | @ | ((a , b)) | a not equal to b. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | not just one true | | @ | (a , b , c) | out of a, b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a b c | | | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | | | \ / | | | | o | | | | | | | just one true | | @ | ((a , b , c)) | among a, b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | | | | | a | | | | o | | genus a over | | | b c | | species b, c. | | o--o--o | | | | \ / | | partition a | | \ / | | among b & c. | | o | | | | | | | whole pie a: | | @ | ( a ,(b),(c)) | slices b, c. | | | | | o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | Graph | String | Entitative | Existential | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | @ | " " | untrue. | true. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | | @ | ( ) | true. | untrue. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r | | | | | @ | r | r. | r. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | | @ | (r) | not r. | not r. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s t | | | | | @ | r s t | r or s or t. | r and s and t. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s t | | | | | o o o | | | | | \|/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | | @ | ((r)(s)(t)) | r and s and t. | r or s or t. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | r implies s. | | | | | | | o r | | | if r then s. | | | | | | | | @ s | (r) s | not r, or s | no r sans s. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | r implies s. | | r s | | | | | o---o | | | if r then s. | | | | | | | | @ | (r (s)) | | no r sans s. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s | | | | | o---o | | |r exclusive-or s.| | \ / | | | | | @ | (r , s) | |r not equal to s.| o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s | | | | | o---o | | | | | \ / | | | | | o | | |r if & only if s.| | | | | | | | @ | ((r , s)) | |r equates with s.| o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s t | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | | just one false | | @ | (r , s , t) | | out of r, s, t. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | | | r s t | | | | | o o o | | | | | | | | | | | | | o--o--o | | | | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | | just one true | | @ | ((r),(s),(t)) | | among r, s, t. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o | | | | genus t over | | r s | | | species r, s. | | o o | | | | | t | | | | | partition t | | o--o--o | | | among r & s. | | \ / | | | | | \ / | | | whole pie t: | | @ | ( t ,(r),(s)) | | slices r, s. | o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o |