> What is this central dot?
Yeah, I wish he had started by defining that. The is hard to understand without it.
Search for "Is There a Better Notation?" in the article, it seems "." is NAND
Yeah, I wish he had started by defining that. The is hard to understand without it.
Search for "Is There a Better Notation?" in the article, it seems "." is NAND
NAND isn't THE operator, it is AN operator that can be in that place.
If there's only 1 value that variables can be - "I", then "I \dot I = I" would be a valid operator that follows given axioms