Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?
From: V.J. Kumar <vjkmail_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:13:49 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <Xns9996CDCC3B45vdghher_at_194.177.96.26>
>
> Because it does not satisify all the logical laws of an AND, so to
> avoid confusion another notation is used.
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:13:49 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <Xns9996CDCC3B45vdghher_at_194.177.96.26>
Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com> wrote in news:1187998409.227306.271460_at_e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On 24 aug, 16:35, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> You may be right, but then why the formula was not written with an >> explicit 'and' ?
>
> Because it does not satisify all the logical laws of an AND, so to
> avoid confusion another notation is used.
What logical laws of AND are violated when we interpret
'def(x):f(x)' as 'def(x) and f(x)' ? Received on Sat Aug 25 2007 - 02:13:49 CEST