Re: wff's definition
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:26:42 +0200
Saurav wrote:
If one wishes, for some reason, to take a set theoretic approach, the wffs of a language L are defined as a subset of the set of strings over the alphabet of L (i.e. finite sequences of symbols of L) as
{P | P is a string over the alphabet of L & for all A( if A is
"wff-closed" P is in A)}
where a set A is "wff-closed" iff
- every atomic formula is in A
- if P is in A then ~P is in A
- if P and Q are in A then so are P & Q, P <--> Q, P --> Q, P \/ Q
- if P is in A and x is a variable then "for all x P" is in A and so
is "exists x P"
Well, can you prove the unique readability from your definition?
Adding parentheses in the definition of "wff-closed", yes.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- References:
- wff's definition
- From: pukun
- Re: wff's definition
- From: aatu . koskensilta
- Re: wff's definition
- From: Saurav
- wff's definition
- Prev by Date: Re: ZFC in 4 Axioms.
- Next by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: wff's definition
- Next by thread: Re: wff's definition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|