Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:36:12 -0500
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:cNKHb.64146$VB2.125134_at_attbi_s51...
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPOdnepoTvzeP3OiRVn-hA_at_golden.net...
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. Time is just as atomic as any other type including relation
> > types.
> > >
> > > I'm not clear on why types have to be atomic. I have not seen a
> > > reason for it.
> > It is not a question of whether they have to be. They just are. The
> > does not change when we represent it as 5+0j where j is the imaginary
> I agree that type integer is atomic.
The point is all types are atomic. A value is just a point in some space. It doesn't matter whether the value is 5+0j or 5+10j or a relation. Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 11:36:12 CET