[FOM] Why inclusive disjunction?
hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
Thu Jan 11 08:55:25 EST 2007
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:26:48AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> Seriously, I don't know what the history behind this choice is. I know
> the controversy exists already with Boole, and I think the choice was
> made largely on grounds of simplicity and elegance. Inclusive or
> certainly is far simpler to work with. It's associative, for one thing,
So is exclusive or.
More information about the FOM