 Home
 Products
 Integration
 Tutorial
 Barcode FAQ
 Purchase
 Company
c# barcode generator open source WHY THREE AND FOURVALUED LOGIC DON T WORK in Font
CHAPTER 18 WHY THREE AND FOURVALUED LOGIC DON T WORK Encoding Quick Response Code In None Using Barcode creator for Font Control to generate, create QR Code ISO/IEC18004 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comEAN / UCC  13 Generator In None Using Barcode creation for Font Control to generate, create EAN / UCC  14 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.com4VL Number 3
Drawing PDF417 In None Using Barcode generation for Font Control to generate, create PDF 417 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comUSS Code 39 Generator In None Using Barcode printer for Font Control to generate, create USS Code 39 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comAlthough I m not aware of any generally available publication in which he documented the fact, I have it on good authority that Codd subsequently revised his 4VL tables again, thus: Barcode Generation In None Using Barcode encoder for Font Control to generate, create Barcode image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comMake Denso QR Bar Code In None Using Barcode generator for Font Control to generate, create QR Code image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comNOT t a i f f i a t
Making EAN13 Supplement 5 In None Using Barcode printer for Font Control to generate, create GTIN  13 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comEAN 8 Encoder In None Using Barcode encoder for Font Control to generate, create EAN8 image in Font applications. www.OnBarcode.comOR t a i f
Generating Quick Response Code In .NET Framework Using Barcode creator for Reporting Service Control to generate, create QR Code image in Reporting Service applications. www.OnBarcode.comDecoding QR Code ISO/IEC18004 In C#.NET Using Barcode recognizer for VS .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in Visual Studio .NET applications. www.OnBarcode.comt a i f t t t t t a a a t a i i t a i f
European Article Number 13 Generation In Java Using Barcode printer for Android Control to generate, create GTIN  13 image in Android applications. www.OnBarcode.comBarcode Encoder In VS .NET Using Barcode printer for ASP.NET Control to generate, create Barcode image in ASP.NET applications. www.OnBarcode.comAND t a i f
Code 128 Code Set C Printer In VS .NET Using Barcode drawer for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Code 128C image in Visual Studio .NET applications. www.OnBarcode.comScan PDF 417 In VB.NET Using Barcode reader for .NET framework Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications. www.OnBarcode.comt a i f t a i f a a i f i i i f f f f f
Print 2D Barcode In Java Using Barcode creator for Java Control to generate, create 2D image in Java applications. www.OnBarcode.comDraw Code 128 Code Set A In Java Using Barcode maker for Eclipse BIRT Control to generate, create Code 128 Code Set B image in BIRT applications. www.OnBarcode.comHere the change is in the table for NOT NOT a and NOT i are now defined to return i and a, respectively, instead of (as formerly) a and i. What effect does this change have Well, again it s easy to see that (NOT p) OR q still fails to give the definition we d like for implication, and ((NOT p) OR q) AND ((NOT q) OR p) still fails to give the definition we d like for equivalence. However, De Morgan s Laws do now work, and I think it not unlikely that this fact was Codd s justification for defining his third 4VL the way he did. But De Morgan s Laws aren t everything, of course. I have a more formal criticism of Codd s third 4VL. Returning for a moment to threevalued logic, it s easy to see that Codd s 3VL truth tables for NOT, OR, and AND reduce to those for twovalued logic if we simply delete the rows and columns corresponding to the third truth value a. However, no analogous property holds for Codd s third 4VL. To be specific, if we delete the rows and columns for the fourth truth value i from the 4VL truth tables for NOT, OR, and AND, we do not obtain the corresponding 3VL tables; to be more specific still, we re left with the fact that NOT a is defined to return the fourth truth value i, a truth value that doesn t exist at all in Codd s 3VL. UCC  12 Generation In VS .NET Using Barcode creator for ASP.NET Control to generate, create Universal Product Code version A image in ASP.NET applications. www.OnBarcode.comDraw UCC128 In None Using Barcode maker for Online Control to generate, create EAN128 image in Online applications. www.OnBarcode.comSome Questions of Intuition
1D Barcode Encoder In Visual Basic .NET Using Barcode maker for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create 1D Barcode image in .NET framework applications. www.OnBarcode.comScanning PDF417 In None Using Barcode recognizer for Software Control to read, scan read, scan image in Software applications. www.OnBarcode.comMost of this chapter has been concerned with various formal properties of the logics under discussion. In this final section, however, I want to raise some questions of a more intuitive nature. Recall that the Amark is supposed to denote a value that s missing because it s unknown, while the Imark is supposed to denote a value that s missing because it doesn t apply, and the two truth values a and i are introduced as corresponding truth values. Now, I deliberately didn t try to explain previously what it might mean for a and i to correspond to Amarks and Imarks, respectively. That s because I m not sure I can! It s quite difficult to find a clear statement on the matter in the RM/V2 book. However, let me give it a shot. Let X, A, and I be variables (of the same type, so they can be tested for equality), and let X have some genuine (i.e., unmarked ) value while A is Amarked and I is Imarked. Then I think the following, at least, are true statements (though, frankly, it s hard to be sure): CHAPTER 18 WHY THREE AND FOURVALUED LOGIC DON T WORK
The following expressions all evaluate to i: X = I A = I I = I The following expressions both evaluate to a: X = A A = A So a ( missing and applicable ) is what we get if we ask if an Amark is equal to anything other than an Imark, and i ( missing and inapplicable ) is what we get if we ask if an Imark is equal to anything at all. Observe in particular, therefore, that (like null in SQL) nothing, not even the Amark itself, is equal to the Amark, and likewise for the Imark. Given the foregoing state of affairs, I now come to my questions: First, what intuitive as opposed to, possibly, formal justification is there for defining NOT (missing and applicable) to be equivalent to missing and inapplicable Certainly the equivalence doesn t seem to make much sense in ordinary colloquial English. Likewise, what intuitive justification is there for defining NOT (missing and inapplicable) to be missing and applicable In a similar vein, what intuitive justification is there for defining a OR i to be a and a AND i to be i I don t think formal justifications, even if there are any, will be sufficient to persuade the punters that these rules make sense (remember that all of these matters eventually have to be explained to the na ve end user ). I have a related question, too. Let X and Y be variables of type truth value. In Codd s 4VL, the legal values of X and Y are precisely t, a, i, f. But, of course, each of X and Y might be either Amarked or Imarked. Suppose X has the value t but Y is A or Imarked. Then what s the value of X OR Y It must be t t OR anything is always t but I strongly suspect that Codd would say it has to be a or i (though again I can t find a clear statement on the matter in the RM/V2 book).

