AND and OR (was Re: Glyphica Arcana Page)
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 21, 2005, 20:10|
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> writes:
> > [...]
> > Do you have an inclusive OR as well as an exlusive OR, i.e. a marker for
> > (A AND B) OR (A OR B)
> That's quite redundant and could be reduced to a simple (A OR B).
AFAIK, you need only NOT and *either* AND or (inclusive) OR.
A AND B is NOT((NOT A) OR (NOT B));
A OR B is NOT((NOT A) AND (NOT B)).
What's more, you can get along with *only one* operator, namely
either NAND or NOR. Choosing NAND:
NOT A = A NAND A
A AND B = (A NAND B) NAND (A NAND B)
A OR B = (A NAND A) NAND (B NAND B)
I hope I haven't made a mistake.
But such a language would be rather cumbersome.
> I think my Tyl Sjok is worst in this respect: it only has one
> coordination particle. If used without anything else, it only
> indicates that no subordination/modification happens and that the two
> linked constituents are equally coordinated. It may mean 'and' as
> well as 'or', 'xor', whatever. For clarifying the meaning, you need
> additional words. :-)
Old Albic is more user-friendly there: it has _a_ `and',
_o_ `or (inclusive)' and _u_ `or (exclusive)', and of course