Re: A Logical Model for Lists as Relations

From: vc <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 10 May 2006 08:16:03 -0700
Message-ID: <1147274163.290363.169630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

Jay Dee wrote:
[..]
> I think not. Relations are sets, lists aren't.

Of course lists are sets plus the 'cons' operation.

>The naturals -
> which don't include zero, by the way - are a set,

By the way in modern math, naturals do include zero (von Neumann numerals, abstract algebra, category theory) although N with or without zero distinction in many cases is unimportant.

Besides, naturals can be regarded as a recursive data structure in a very much the same fashion as lists by substituting Nil and Cons for Zero and Succ.

> For lists, you need bunch theory, not set theory.

What's 'bunch theory' ? Received on Wed May 10 2006 - 10:16:03 CDT