Marc Hartstein writes: >The issue, of course, is that a "simple" statement to someone used to >the assumptions of logic may be hideously complex to somebody who isn't >("What do you mean the rule is 'Either there are no blue pyramids or all >blue pyramids must be flat'? That's too hard!"), and vice versa ("Your >rule was 'There must be at least one blue pyramid AND all blue pyramids >must be flat'? I thought you said it didn't require a compound >statement!") Indeed -- though the first of these doesn't require a complex statement even avoiding points of ambiguity -- "bniff no blue pyramid is non-flat". I can't think of a non-compound way to say the other, though I can certainly think of alternatives -- "bniff contains at least one blue flat and all blue pyramids are in the same orientation", etc. -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'