Re: relations aren't types?

"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:72f08f6c.0312302252.52aacf1c_at_posting.google.com...
> > I have yet to see a useful definition of scalar that does not include
> > everything one can represent in a finite number of bits.
>
> Why is this a requirement for a useful definition of scalar?

Scalar is not a useful concept so I fail to understand your question.

> Why does
> a finite number of bits even matter? It sounds like you are
> describing the physical representation of the value, which can be done
> with a finite number of bits for every value of every type, by
> definition. Why does this even enter into the logical level of the
> language?

With all due respect, if everything one can represent with a finite number of bits is a scalar, everything one can represent with a computer system is a scalar, which is rather too encompassing to have any utility.

> > "A join B" requires you know the attributes of something? What
attributes
> > must you know?
>
> You can invoke "A join B" without knowing the attributes, but what
> does the result mean?

You can invoke A * B without knowing the exact types or dimensions, but what does the result mean? You can invoke A AND B without knowing the bits, but what does the result mean? You can invoke Distance(P1,P2) without knowing any coordinate systems, but what does the result mean? You can invoke P2 - P1 without knowing any coordinate systems, but what does the result mean?

What relevance does your question have? Received on Wed Dec 31 2003 - 11:13:58 CET