From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7332b19c66a79eea
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.85.MISMATCH!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!not-for-mail
From: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Quantified Expressions: "some"
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:33:21 +0100
Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011171230480.29263@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
References: <4ce31bb6$0$7670$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature
NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de 1289986537 22940 141.54.178.228 (17 Nov 2010
 09:35:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:35:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-X-Sender: lucks@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de
In-Reply-To: <4ce31bb6$0$7670$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16508
Date: 2010-11-17T12:33:21+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> AI05-0176 explains two new expressions,
> 
>  (for all X in domain | P (X))
> 
> and
> 
>  (for some X in domain | P (X))

As a keyword-reuising alternative for "for some", Geor proposed

>  (for when X in domain | P (X))

This is really ill-readable, IMHO. As others in this thread have pointed
out, this may be read as "all", actually.

If you really really really wanted to avoid "some", use Mathematics:

    P holds for some X    <=>   not (not P holds for all X).

Thus, the expression

   (for some X in domain | P(X))

could be rephrased as

   (not (for all X in domain | not P(X)))

without any need for the word "some".

But honestly, I prefer to write "some" over using "not" twice.

Stefan


-- 
------ Stefan Lucks   --  Bauhaus-University Weimar  --   Germany  ------
               Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------