I prefer it only because it's less redundant (the verb is repeated only once). Otherwise I think they are equivalent. <div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/11 Norbert E. Fuchs <<a href="mailto:fuchs@ifi.uzh.ch">fuchs@ifi.uzh.ch</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"> On 11 Jul 2010, at 16:40, Gabriele Kahlout wrote: > While the 2nd solution is brilliant. The paraphrase of it is: > If a thing X1 is inserted and a thing X2 is inserted then the thing X2 is the thing X1. > This paraphrase is the same for inserted prefixed with a lexicon or not. > I take this 2nd solution as to be the way to express exclusiveness of the kind in Attempto (until I find other ways, possibly more natural). </div>Is this more natural? If something X and something Y are inserted then X is Y. --- nef</blockquote></div> -- Regards, K. Gabriele --- unchanged since 25/1/10 --- P.S. Unless a notification (LON), please reply either with an answer OR with " ACK" appended to this subject within 48 hours. Otherwise, I might resend. In(LON, this) ∨ In(48h, TimeNow) ∨ ∃x. In(x, MyInbox) ∧ IsAnswerTo(x, this) ∨ (In(subject(this), subject(x)) ∧ In(ACK, subject(x)) ∧ ¬IsAnswerTo(x,this)) ⇒ ¬IResend(this). Also note that correspondence may be received only from specified a priori senders, or if the subject of this email ends with a code, eg. -LICHT01X, then also from senders whose reply contains it. ∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y, subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).