Re: relations aren't types?

From: Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:39:39 -0800
Message-ID: <jjoJb.12$Ma6.43@news.oracle.com>

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0401021605.97df0ed_at_posting.google.com...
> For instance a matrix type does not have representations, a matrix is
> a matrix :)

Do you imply that matrix is not a scalar type?

If we consider matrix as an element of a ring, then it seems to meet programming definition of a scalar as type with operations (addition, multiplication). If we consider mathematical definition of scalar (as zero rank tensor), then matrix (being a second rank tensor) is definetely not a scalar.

To put it bluntly, programming terminology is confusing. Received on Fri Jan 02 2004 - 18:39:39 CST