Re: computational model of transactions

Brian Selzer wrote:
...
>
> Time may be optional, but I don't think you can ignore order. You speak of
> a logical "sum." Since we're dealing with propositions, I think that that
> "sum" must be conjunctive in nature, but is not logical conjunction exactly,
> because the order in which the propositions are "summed" is important. If
> the propositions to be "summed" form a set, then order is not important, but
> I don't think they form a set, but rather a list, and your reference to
> retractions above implies that. The truth of a set of propositions is the
> same regardless of the order, but the same is not true with a list of
> propositions. In a list, the same assertion can be stated more than once
> while still maintaining consistency, provided that there are intervening
> retractions. The same is not true if those assertions and retractions are
> taken together as a set. The conjunction, A ^ ~A ^ A is the same as A ^ ~A,
> because A ^ A = A; in other words A ^ ~A ^ A is a contradiction and thus can
> be ignored. The list of assertions (A, ~A, A), on the other hand, means A.
> ...

By refusing to give up order, you are refusing to give up time and pretending that you aren't. If you can't operate without that dimension, don't pretend. "Sum" isn't conjunctive. You don't need to use lists either. Although it's not a fair trade, since I have less mysticism to offer, I'll trade some of mine for yours. Until you strip away everything that is not needed for a minimal logic, you won't know what you really need and you can't be credible about it (since you talk of consistency and contradictions, I must assume your basis is logic). Your assertions (A, ~A, A), by the way, mean (), not A, even if you were to accept the disjunctive operator that most people use to enable assertions.

p Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 01:40:25 CEST