def p ():
w = set()
N = [w]
i = [w]
p = [w]
x = [i, p]
o = 0
for o in range(len(N)):
w = set(w)
N = N.append(w)
i = i.append(w)
o = o + 1
if o == float('inf'):
p = i.append(i)
k = N.index(float('inf')) is x in x.union(2 >= N) | all(i) in N(x.index(i) >= x.index(p))
X = 0
while X <= 2:
X = X + 1
any(k) in X(p(k) is 0) or all(k) in X(p(k) is 1)
while i < 126:
i= i + 1
o = chr(i)
v = p()
if v == 1:
q = q + o
elif v == 0:
q = q
if q == q + "":
The equations for this can be found on the first page of this article
It’s kind of a mess, but i feel it’s worth my time.
Between the terse variable names and the lack of comments, I am not sure what you want this code to do. It’s really unreasonable to ask people to decipher a research paper and divine the intent of your code from that paper. I could, but I don’t have the time, and most people here don’t have advanced degrees in Math or CS.
What do you actually understand about programming? I think you may need to back way up and learn some basics. Python looks friendly, but you can’t quite write equations directly from a research paper and get it to run.
You’re basically saying ‘Ok, let’s use a car instead of a motorcyle or an airplane. Can I also use the car as a boat?’
A symbol can only be one type of thing. In this case, X could be a number OR a function OR an object, but not all three in the same scope.
Your code makes no sense. Your questions do not make sense. Based on the questions you are asking, you do not seem to know the difference between a variable, a function, and a loop. I don’t know what you are trying to do, and as we said before, I’m not going to read the entire paper to try to figure out your code.
You can’t test an infinite set against all possible two valued functions in Python
You don’t seem to know how to use fundamental control structures in Python
Python just doesn’t work the way you are attempting to use it.
You could use Python to verify that a specific finite set meets the omniscience principle for a specific two valued function. But that is disregarded as a trivial case in Escardo’s paper (understandably so).