On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Todd Benson <caduceass / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote:
>>   !(for all s: (s <=>s.succ) == -1)
>
> Well, not really.  That gives you no information as to whether such a
> thing does exist.  That statement would be true, but not definitive,
> meaning, that it would be true if there is _no_ s that satisfies.
>
> I think Robert was going for "at least 1" in his statement.
>
> But, I guess that's just making a mountain out of a mole hill, because
> I think Rick was just pointing out something, and not trying to be
> being rigorously complete.

Okay, that may have been a major faux pas on my part :-)

Todd