Re: relations aren't types?

From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:32:41 GMT
Message-ID: <tsMNb.65616$5V2.73182@attbi_s53>

"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message news:slrnc0et6q.b4g.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com> schrieb:
> > "Bottom" (sometimes written _|_) is a type that has no values.
>
> I thought that bottom was a value which is a member of all types?

Bottom is a type which is a subtype of all types. Bottom has no values.

Conversely, top is a type that is a supertype of all types. Top has all values.

The names are kind of dorky; they always make me think of spanking. But they are pretty well entrenched; I think they derive from lattice theory originally.

Marshall Received on Fri Jan 16 2004 - 01:32:41 CST