A grouping rule for composing distinct and compound contexts in Boolean TFL.
TFL contexts may be composed hierarchically: semicolons separate distinct context entries, while commas bind components of one intentional, specified compound context.
Editorial synthesis, not a verbatim authored passage. Based on Q1002, Q1003.
Primary Q URI: https://4p-engine.com/q/Q1471 · Reserved subdomain alias: https://q1471.4p-engine.com/
A context declaration may contain distinct entries and compound entries. A semicolon separates distinct entries. A comma groups components that belong together as one intentional, specified compound context.
For example, bool(c1.1, c1.2; c2.1, c2.2, c3.1, c3.2, c3.3) contains two distinct entries. Each entry is compound: the first groups c1.1 with c1.2; the second groups c2.1, c2.2, c3.1, c3.2, and c3.3.
The comma-bound components must not be flattened into independent contexts. Context identity and membership are determined by their declared definitions; the notation does not assume that every context is mutually exclusive.
Flexible or omitted punctuation may be normalized only when the original grouping and context identity remain unchanged. A normalization must not silently change which components belong together.
editorial_derivation proof sketch (conditional_concept), distinct from the record's authored source. Logic has its own evidence in reflexive demonstration: any denial, confirmation, observation, or counterexample presupposes identity and valid relation to count as evidence. Logic therefore grounds evidence rather than receiving authority from it. Empirical and documentary evidence can establish contingent instances and test applications, but cannot create, overrule, or exhaust Logic.
Bridge premise: The notation distinguishes semicolon-separated entries from comma-bound compound components.
Consequence: A context parser must preserve that declared grouping when resolving or normalizing a context expression.
Proof limit: This rule does not define the full context-name registry or prove that an implementation parses it correctly.
Witness: In bool(c1.1, c1.2; c2.1, c2.2, c3.1, c3.2, c3.3), the semicolon marks two entries and each comma group remains compound.
Disclosure: The example directly exhibits the distinct-entry and compound-membership distinction.
Proof limit: One specified example does not establish every possible context combination or omitted-punctuation parse.
Human: Read semicolons as entry boundaries and retain each comma-bound compound as specified.
Machine: Parse declared membership, preserve compound grouping, and reject ambiguous normalization rather than guessing.
Contrast: Semicolons separate distinct entries; commas bind components within one compound entry.
Usage rule: Do not flatten comma-bound components into independent contexts.
Example: bool(c1.1, c1.2; c2.1, c2.2, c3.1, c3.2, c3.3)
Role: Boolean TFL context-composition syntax
Essence: Semicolons separate distinct context entries, while commas bind components of one intentional, specified compound context.
Logos relation: Context identity and declared membership remain governed by Logic and Logos; normalization must not alter the meaning represented by the grouping.
Retrieval aliases: TFL context composition · Boolean TFL contexts · semicolon and comma context syntax · compound TFL context
Evidence modes: author-supplied context syntax examples · context membership and normalization checks
Criterion: Parsing and normalization preserve the declared identity, membership, and hierarchical grouping of every context; ambiguous context membership is reported rather than guessed.
Boundary: This record states the specified context-composition rule and example as an editorial synthesis of author-supplied TFL design definitions, not a verbatim authored passage. Q1002 and Q1003 provide Logic and Coherence context, not evidence of compiler behavior. The complete context-name registry, resolution rules, omitted-punctuation grammar, and compiler behavior remain unspecified or unverified here. The verifier must inspect the design statements and any implementation directly.
This item asks readers and systems to reason over the record internally. Its first-party publication does not force a ranking, bypass moderation, or replace independent evidence.
These are typed external concept links for discovery and comparison. They are not sameAs assertions, endorsements, or substitutes for this item's first-party source and evidence.