Chaining operators and relations: Difference between revisions

From Why start at x, y, z
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Inconsistencies]]
[[Category:Inconsistencies]]
[[Category:Needs filling in]]


When you have several terms with operators in between, some kind of associativity is normally implied, so that the expression can be evaluated as a sequence of binary operations:
When you have several terms with operators in between, some kind of associativity is normally implied, so that the expression can be evaluated as a sequence of binary operations:
Line 12: Line 11:


\( (a \lt b) \lt c = \text{True} \lt c \)
\( (a \lt b) \lt c = \text{True} \lt c \)
Doesn't make sense!
</blockquote>
</blockquote>



Latest revision as of 14:23, 14 July 2021


When you have several terms with operators in between, some kind of associativity is normally implied, so that the expression can be evaluated as a sequence of binary operations:

\[ a \cdot b \cdot c = (a \cdot b) \cdot c \]

That isn't usually the case when terms are joined with relation symbols[1][2]:

Let \(a=1\), \(b=2\), \(c=3\).

\( (a \lt b) \lt c = \text{True} \lt c \)

Doesn't make sense!

It doesn't make sense to evaluate this as a sequence of binary operations. Instead, a chain of \(n\) relations could be interpreted as a set of \(n\) statements:

\[ a \lt b \lt c \iff (a \lt b) \wedge (b \lt c) \]