Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:59:33 -0800
Message-ID: <uqEJb.2$Sv3.124_at_news.oracle.com>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0401030604.4016b1ab_at_posting.google.com...
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
news:<jjoJb.12$Ma6.43_at_news.oracle.com>...
> > If we consider mathematical definition of scalar (as zero
> > rank tensor), then matrix (being a second rank tensor) is definetely not
a
> > scalar.
>
> I don't know about rank tensors, but perhaps we could use them or
> something similar for a serious definition of scalar and non scalar
> type. What do you think?
Scalar in math is always a real number. As opposed to vector or matrix. It seems that programmers stretched this concept without bothering giving it definition. If we follow Date's prescription "Think precisely", then shouldn't we dismiss this vague term? Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 19:59:33 CET