Subject: RE: Parents disinherit their children From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:17:01 +0100 |
> However, I'm concerned about the logical inconsistency in this > statement as currently written. In common usage, both technical and > genealogical, the statement that A is the parent of B clearly implies > that B is the child of A. Why is this common understanding of > language broken here? Because language designers always adopt the Humpty Dumpty principle of using words to mean whatever they choose. There are far bigger surprises - it's wrong to say logical inconsistencies - in XPath, for example the fact that A=B and B=C does not imply A=C, or that A!=B does not imply not(A=B), or indeed that A=A can be false. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Parents disinherit their childr, DPawson | Thread | processor scalability (was Re: styl, Greg Bylenok |
RE: Parents disinherit their childr, DPawson | Date | Runnig heads proposal. ( short )., Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |