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$Ma6.43_at_news.oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:39:39 -0800
Message-ID: <jjoJb.12$Ma6.43_at_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 Sat Jan 03 2004 - 01:39:39 CET