On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin Schultz <ke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found that SHALL NOT -> >> CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT -> CANNOT would probably >> break a lot of things. > > It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that CANNOT > -> SHALL NOT, given that SHALL -> CAN.
The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is actually defined by MMI. --Warrie
