Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Defining ExactL between various concepts #371

Open
hfaghihi15 opened this issue Apr 13, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Defining ExactL between various concepts #371

hfaghihi15 opened this issue Apr 13, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@hfaghihi15
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello @auszok!

I was wondering how we should define the following constraint:

For each step, entity, only one of the action_create, action_move, action_destory can be correct

Is the following correct?

forAllL(
        combinationC(step, entity)('i', 'e'),
        ifL(
            action(path=(('i', action_step.reversed), ('e', action_entity.reversed))),
            atMostL(action_create, action_destroy, action_move)
        )
    )
@hfaghihi15 hfaghihi15 added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Apr 13, 2023
@auszok
Copy link
Collaborator

auszok commented Apr 15, 2023

More precisely it should be

forAllL(
         combinationC(step, entity)('i', 'e'),
         ifL(
             action('x', path=(('i', action_step.reversed), ('e', action_entity.reversed))),
             atMostL(action_create(path='x'), action_destroy(path='x'), action_move(path='x'))
         )
     )

However if not 'x' is defined it will assumed.
atMostL will also allow than none is true unless you have another constraint requiring that action has some class.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants