Re: De Morgan's laws

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 28.12.2024 18:35, Salvador Mirzo wrote:

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
 

In article <vknmc3$3v5eh$2@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:26 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>

You can also de-morgan the expression

>
First time I heard a reference to De Morgans theorems being used as a
verb. ;)
>
Does make it sound like you are removing something called morgan though,
doesnt it ...

>
I think the word we're looking for here is: un-de-morgan.
>
That is, to translate the verbose but more understandable:
>
!foo and !bar
>
into:
>
! (foo or bar)
>
via application of De Morgan's law(s) would be to de-morgan it.
>
CW was suggesting the reverse operation.

 
I'd suggest that to write
 
  !(foo or bar)
 
is /to de-morgan/ the expression ``!foo and !bar'', while to rewrite
back as !(foo or bar) is /to morgan/ the expression.

>
I've ever always seen both directions as transformations according
to the laws of De Morgan (so neither would be en-morgan or de-morgan,
sort of).

We're defining directions here so that we can speak and look cool.  We
can all pose as intellectuals.  And people will have to look up the
morgan verb---unsuccessfully.

In context of 'find' the '-and' form might be considered simpler due
to 'find's inherent 'and'-logic.

I think en-morgan should making something jump into the parentheses and
de-morgan should be the reverse.  We should not be too logical.  We
should prioritize how we sound and how our powerpoint presentations will
look like when we're presenting our style.