[rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?

Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.laun at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 06:05:43 EST 2010


Expert manual:
   not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and
not(and p2 p3...))
I think this is incorrect; it should read
   forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...))

Is this also the way forall is actually implemented?

-W


More information about the rules-dev mailing list