DanCon: does this mean there's hope that webmasters will learn to use GET?
DanCon: I'm curious about the semantics. How are they different from FOPL?
DanCon: "Brouwer correctly predicted that any attempt to prove the consistency of complete induction on the natural numbers would lead to a vicious circle."
DanCon: PatH kept telling me induction wasn't 1st order. Took me about 6 or 12 months to grok.
DanCon: "constructive independence of the logical operations &, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/vel.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/ra.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/forall.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/exists.gif> . "
DanCon: "Some Semantics". Hmm... sorta tricky, but not incomprehensible. I think. I'd have to do some larching to be sure.
bijan: The semantics are similar to Prolog with negation-as-failure.
DanCon: "Brouwer correctly predicted that any attempt to prove the consistency of complete induction on the natural numbers would lead to a vicious circle."
DanCon: PatH kept telling me induction wasn't 1st order. Took me about 6 or 12 months to grok.
DanCon: "constructive independence of the logical operations &, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/vel.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/ra.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/forall.gif> , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/exists.gif> . "
DanCon: "Some Semantics". Hmm... sorta tricky, but not incomprehensible. I think. I'd have to do some larching to be sure.
bijan: The semantics are similar to Prolog with negation-as-failure.