Re: Values have types ??

From: Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 06:15:47 -0700
Message-ID: <bjcmhm$hrcbb$1@ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>

>>>	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...
>

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}.

>
>
> That meaning? You see, the type is part of the meaning...
>
>

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

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

>
>
> So what?
>
>

That is

trivial
useless

Received on Sat Sep 06 2003 - 08:15:47 CDT