Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:57:10 GMT
Message-ID: <WDL7g.5113$A26.129543_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 6 May 2006 16:18:03 -0700, vc wrote: >
>>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>But anyway, approximate value + error bounds gives an
>>>infinite set. I can deal with. In a pure set-based model I have to present
>>>the set.
>>
>>For example ?
>
> 1.2 +/- 0.5
And your point would be?
>>>>>>In RM, Z is a predefined elementary type,
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you need elementary types? Set theory does not need them. If you
>>>>>guys claim that 1) set theory is everything one needs, 2) your RM perfectly
>>>>>embodies the theory, then a naive listener (like me) could come a
>>>>>conclusion that 1 & 2 => integers, floats, strings are all constructed
>>>>>using sets.
>>>>
>>>>They are, we just use prepackaged products (as any computational model
>>>>does),
>>>
>>>But that means that RM isn't based on set theory! It is on set theory
>>>*plus* some "prepackaged products."
>>
>>That's a bizzare statemen akin to saying that functions, or any math
>>structure for that matter, for are not based on the set theory because
>>they are used ready-made.
>
> Ask Bob Badour, that was his logic I used, not mine...
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not your straw man, and my statements speak for themselves.
Set theory lets me describe sets with refrigerators and rocks if I want to. Predicate logic lets me describe true statements about refrigerators and rocks if I want to. Received on Mon May 08 2006 - 19:57:10 CEST