D[f] would seem to be closer to B[not f] rather than not B[f]. There are some problems with either approach, though. Things that break. Logical inconsistencies. That kind of thing. Keeping D[f] and B[f] distinct seems to make that go away.
Classical logic definitely doesn't work too well. So, do you still beat your husband? ;-)
Can't you just negate B and leave D out altogether?
Casby the exhausted ghost
p.s. My highest mark in Cambridge was for a Logic essay (surprisingly): "Define Equivalence classes". I got a 1st++! Still only got a 2.1 for the paper though, damn Plurals and Conditionals :0
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Meeple
Classical logic definitely doesn't work too well. So, do you still beat your husband? ;-)
('Law of the excluded agnostic' -- I like that!)
Re: Meeple
Casby the exhausted ghost
p.s. My highest mark in Cambridge was for a Logic essay (surprisingly): "Define Equivalence classes". I got a 1st++! Still only got a 2.1 for the paper though, damn Plurals and Conditionals :0