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_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Date: 10 May 2006 08:16:03 -0700
Message-ID: <1147274163.290363.169630_at_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.
> For lists, you need bunch theory, not set theory.
What's 'bunch theory' ? Received on Wed May 10 2006 - 17:16:03 CEST