Re: Values have types ??

>>>	The discussion was about values implicitly *in a RDB*.  There,
>>>a value will *always* have a type.  So your trap catches no mice... for
>>>this kind of mouse always live in a RDB.
>>
>>In the D&D proposal a value is guaranteed to have a most specific type
>>(MST), which is largely undefined in the book that a few people around
>>here have come to recite like the bible.

These people tend to be misinformed due to their over-reliance on D&D, and I'm not at all biased.

> Anyway that's irrelevant, because you gave a representation
> without a type, so we can't even agree about its precise meaning without
> assuming a type... you end up inadvertently proving what you seem to want
> to refute.
>
>

So you can't really see the non-sense of the position you yake ?

You can't agree on the "meaning" of 2. For the rest of the world, 2 is, well, 2 and everybody know what 2 is. Even my 4 years old.

Go back to your mathematical books and show me a single instance where 2 has an associated type specified for it. I bet you won't find it.

>

>>In the above case I'd propose that the MST is, well, {2}.

Meaning the set with only one element, 2. The standard notation for it is {2}.

>

>>2 then has the "type" {2}

That is

1. trivial
2. useless