Re: Values have types ??
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 06:38:40 -0700
Message-ID: <bjcnsj$hbmgt$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>
Bob Badour wrote:
> Hi Leandro,
>
> I see the silly monkey is back. If you had just a little more self-control,
> I could remain blissfully ignorant of his nonsense. But because I have even
> less self-control, now I feel compelled to reply to some of it.
>
> "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <lgcdutra_at_terra.com.br> wrote in
> message news:pan.2003.09.06.09.16.20.358578_at_terra.com.br...
>
>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:59:55 -0700, Costin Cozianu wrote: >> >> >>>>Could be integer, real, string... >>>> >>> >>>Why not "even integer", or "even positive integer", or prime number ? >> >>Indeed, why not? Surely yes. That's what the three little dots >>at the end of my phrase mean, they are called an 'ellipsis' and are meant >>to a open set of unspecified alternatives.
>
>
> Les singes ne peuvent pas penser des pensées abstraites. Ils comprennent
> seulement les listes explicites.
>
Les plus imbeciles des imbeciles se croient importants et sont ignorants de la dimension de leur inculture.
>
>
>>>>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. >> >>If you were less biased against D&D you'd see these few people >>tend to have good points, and that in the Bible analogy they sometimes >>question the prophets of the faith... >> >>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.
>
>
> Le singe confond un symbole avec une valeur. Le symbole peut représenter
> tout nombre de valeurs.
>
>
Le cochon comme le cochon.
>
>>>In the above case I'd propose that the MST is, well, {2}.
>>
>>That meaning? You see, the type is part of the meaning...
>
>
> Indeed, does {2} mean the same as a subtype of Integer as it means as a
> subtype of { M, F, 2 } or of { Y, N, 2 } or of { Particle, Wave, 2 } ?
>
>
>
>>>2 then has the "type" {2}
>>
>>So what?
>
>
> A type has both a set of values and a set of operations.
> operations for { M, F, 2 } differ from the operations on Integers. One can
> imagine any number of singleton types whose value one can represent as 2.
>
>
We are talking of the number 2 you stupid fool. It's non-sensical to ask to annotate numbers with the fact that they are numbers. If by 2 I meant "l'idiot plus gros", I'd make sure to mention that. Otherwise 2 means 2 for the sane part of the world.
On ne peut pas couvrir l'inculture mathematique avec les plus derisoires cochoneries. Received on Sat Sep 06 2003 - 15:38:40 CEST