Re: relations aren't types?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:18:05 -0500
Message-ID: <WfednVhkLayw6ZrdRVn-hg_at_golden.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:18:05 -0500
Message-ID: <WfednVhkLayw6ZrdRVn-hg_at_golden.net>
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:GvJNb.64753$5V2.72075_at_attbi_s53...
> "Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc0cdli.99p.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> >
> > These aren't types you're talking about, according to standard CS
> > definitions. A type has to have values.
>
> "Bottom" (sometimes written _|_) is a type that has no values.
Indeed. One must always remember an empty set is still a set. "Bottom" has a set of values and a set of operations. Received on Fri Jan 16 2004 - 06:18:05 CET