Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:38:41 -0600
Message-ID: <bt75o8$fn3$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
news:uqEJb.2$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.
<snip>
> 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?
>
Yes, I agree to should be dismissed, although I did try to give it a precise definition to show why it is rarely useful in our discussions. See the new scalar/atomic topic. --dawn Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 20:38:41 CET