Re: 'Unknown' and three-valued logic (was: Example where Euphoria ...)
> Derek, maybe you, and of course anyone else interested, would like to
> have a look at the following lines, especially at the truth table? I'm
> not sure if it is correct -- and I also don't know what value to use for
> 'not unknown'.
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Three-Valued Logic (JuLu, 24. November 2002)
> =============================================
>
> Truth Table
> -----------
>
> Abbreviations:
> T = True
> F = False
> U = Unknown
>
>
> A | B | not A | A and B | A or B | A xor B
> --+---+-------+---------+--------+--------
> T | T | F | T | T | F
> T | F | F | F | T | T
> T | U | F | U | T | U
> F | T | T | F | T | T
> F | F | T | F | F | F
> F | U | T | F | U | U
> U | T | | U | T | U
> U | F | | F | U | U
> U | U | | U | U | F
>
Looks fine to me, except that 'not U' should be 'U', paradoxically. Because
if A is unknown then 'not A' means that we know what A is, however we don't.
Non boolean operations will always produce an unknown value though when at
least one of the operands is unknown.
A | B | A + B | A - B | A * B | A = B
--+---+-------+---------+--------+--------
1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1
1 | U | U | U | U | U
U | 1 | U | U | U | U
U | U | U | U | U | U
----------------
cheers,
Derek Parnell
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|