Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:29:58 -0500
"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Why is this a requirement for a useful definition of scalar?
> > Scalar is not a useful concept so I fail to understand your question.
> So you advocate an untyped language?
That's an absurd question.
> > With all due respect, if everything one can represent with a finite
> > of bits is a scalar, everything one can represent with a computer system
> > a scalar, which is rather too encompassing to have any utility.
> First, the fact that any scalar can be represented with a finite
> number of bits (true of every value, scalar or otherwise) does not
> imply that any finite number of bits is a scalar. Second, and perhaps
> more importantly, the physical representation of the value in the
> computer system has no bearing on the logical model.
What then is your useful definition of scalar?
Remember that the logical model is an abstract model one can implement with real hardware without regard to the specifics of any actual hardware.
> > > 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
> > does the result mean? You can invoke A AND B without knowing the bits,
> > what does the result mean? You can invoke Distance(P1,P2) without
> > any coordinate systems, but what does the result mean? You can invoke
> > P1 without knowing any coordinate systems, but what does the result
> > What relevance does your question have?
> The primary reason for types is to imbue our code with meaning that
> the compiler can understand and verify. The primary reason for scalar
You have yet to demonstrate that a useful definition of scalar exists. Received on Wed Dec 31 2003 - 20:29:58 CET