Re: "Disjoint" relation

[Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nate Hayes wrote:
> Michel Hack wrote:
> > I agree with Arnold that the "Disjoint" relation deserves to be a
> > primitive.  Interestingly, Motion 21 also requires synthesizing it
> > out of two of the "overlapping" states.
>
> Arnolds "observation" that
>    disjoint(A,B) = ( A \prec B ) or ( B \prec A )    (*)
> requires twice as much computational effort than a "primitive" disjoint 
> operation is pure misinformation.

Please provide the pure information that substantiaties your
present claim.

How are you going to evaluate your expression as efficiently as 
evaluating directly
    disjoint(A,B) = (A.sup<B.inf) or (B.sup<A.inf)
?