From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/7043
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Jocelyn Ireson-Paine <popx@j-paine.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: The boringness of the dual of exponential
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:45:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <E1ROabS-0006ge-70@mlist.mta.ca>
References: <E1RN2tu-0005v9-2T@mlist.mta.ca> <F284B070-BBE5-4187-BA3C-E1A3EA560E6A@mq.edu.au> <E1RO8sG-0000dv-Uq@mlist.mta.ca>
Reply-To: Jocelyn Ireson-Paine <popx@j-paine.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1320954749 26747 80.91.229.12 (10 Nov 2011 19:52:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:52:29 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: David Leduc <david.leduc6@googlemail.com>, categories <categories@mta.ca>
To: Andrej Bauer <andrej.bauer@andrej.com>
Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Thu Nov 10 20:52:25 2011
Return-path: <majordomo@mlist.mta.ca>
Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from smtpx.mta.ca ([138.73.1.4])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <majordomo@mlist.mta.ca>)
	id 1ROaff-0003VT-6g
	for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:52:23 +0100
Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:54999)
	by smtpx.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <majordomo@mlist.mta.ca>)
	id 1ROabU-0006y4-1l; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:48:04 -0400
Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <majordomo@mlist.mta.ca>)
	id 1ROabS-0006ge-70
	for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:48:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <E1RO8sG-0000dv-Uq@mlist.mta.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:7043
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/7043>

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Andrej Bauer wrote:

>> Also, in logic, "and" goes in pair with "or", "for all" goes in pair
>> with "there exists". But implication is always left alone. Why is it
>> so?
>
> I am afraid logic is polyamorous:
> ...
> By the way:
>
> 1. "forall" goes with "weakening" because it is adjoint to it on the right.
> 2. "exists" goes with "weakening" because it is adjoint to it on the left.
>
What's the definition of "weakening"? I've not seen this word used
formally.

> ...
> Andrej
>
Thanks
Jocelyn


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]