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." '---''(_/--' (_/-'