actually my idea was that having a good axioms the XOR may be derived from OR (and that axioms).<br>For ex., for cash-machine we have XOR but for wallet - not.<br><br>Alex<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/11 Gabriele Kahlout <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gabriele@mysimpatico.com">gabriele@mysimpatico.com</a>></span><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">It could be more naturally written as:<br>"If a card is inserted then exactly it is inserted". <br> <br>But both are not complete ACE. I write:<br>"If a card is inserted by somebody then exactly 1 card is inserted by everybody"<span style="color: rgb(150, 150, 150);"></span>.<br> Does it mean that everybody inserts a card (so the number of everybody) or that all of them together have only one card inserted?<br><br>Again, would this be the most "natural" way to express XOR for "a customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard?<br> I found no documentation on expressing mutual exclusiveness.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/11 Alex Shkotin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alex.shkotin@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.shkotin@gmail.com</a>></span><div> <div></div><div class="h5"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Gabriele,<br><br>It seems that if you have an axiom of your application area of kind you have written:<div><br>"If a card X1 is inserted then exactly X1 is inserted. ..."<br><br></div>then later in "factology" they may simply report that <br> <div> "A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard"<br><br></div>Regards,<br><br>Alex<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/11 Gabriele Kahlout <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gabriele@mysimpatico.com" target="_blank">gabriele@mysimpatico.com</a>></span><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/11 Norbert E. Fuchs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fuchs@ifi.uzh.ch" target="_blank">fuchs@ifi.uzh.ch</a>></span><div> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><br> On 11 Jul 2010, at 09:12, Gabriele Kahlout wrote:<br> <br> > So this could mean that a customer could insert 2 cards before inserting a code in<br> > A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code.<br> > Wasn't natural language or mostly xor?<br> <br> </div>Not in our experience. We checked naturally occurring "either-or" on the web, and found that in most cases it did not mean exclusive or, but emphasis.<br> <br></blockquote></div></div>That's interesting, is there a report on this research?<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or#Exclusive_.E2.80.9Cor.E2.80.9D_in_natural_language" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or#Exclusive_.E2.80.9Cor.E2.80.9D_in_natural_language</a><br> <br><br>So in this case one should have written "the customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and not both and inserts a code.<br>But there is no support for both, so how could mutual exclusiveness be expressed?<br><br>"No card is inserted while another card is inserted. The customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code."<br>but function words while and another don't exist. So:<br>"If a card is inserted then no other card is inserted. ..."<br>but other also doesn't exist:<br>"If a card X1 is inserted then no card is inserted except X1. ..."<br> but except doesn't exist:<br>"If a card X1 is inserted then exactly X1 is inserted. ..."<br>exactly meaning that no other card is inserted.<br><br>Is the last the most natural way to express xor in ACE for the example sentence?<div> <div></div><div><br clear="all"> <br>-- <br>Regards, <br>K. Gabriele<br><br>--- unchanged since 25/1/10 ---<br> 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.<br>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).<br> <br>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.<br>∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y, subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).<br> <br> </div></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br> attempto mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:attempto@lists.ifi.uzh.ch" target="_blank">attempto@lists.ifi.uzh.ch</a><br> <a href="https://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/listinfo/attempto" target="_blank">https://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/listinfo/attempto</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br> </blockquote></div></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Regards, <br>K. Gabriele<br><br>--- unchanged since 25/1/10 ---<br>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.<br> 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).<br><br>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.<br> ∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y, subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).<br><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>