{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.048562933597621406, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014866204162537165, 'mean_word_length': 4.611111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructible falsity and inexact predicates

In 1949 Nelson [5] proposed a constructive logic in which falsity is conceived in a fashion analogous to that for intuitionistic truth. The predicate calculus N (for strong negation) was characterized by the usual axioms and rules for positive intuitionistic connectives (see Kleene [4, p. 82, la–7 and 9–12]), with the additional axiom schemata for strong negation: A ⊃ (¬A ⊃ B), Nelson's paper showed that N may be interpreted with concepts for constructive truth (P-realizability) and falsity (N-realizability). The paper also gave mappings between the intuitionistic and strong negation systems of arithmetic. These mappings are easily adapted to pure predicate calculus. One shows that intuitionistic predicate calculus I is a subsystem of N by reading the intuitionistic negation of A as A ⊃ B & ¬B in N. It is possible to map N into a subsystem of I using the definition of A′ in [5, p. 19] changing only the definition of (¬A)′ for atomic A to A ⊃ B & ¬B.