Re: Operationalize orthogonality
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:21:08 +0300
Message-ID: <e5h9li$fci$1_at_nntp.aioe.org>
"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1148986993.594626.295750_at_y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Indeed. Once you can represent integers, you can represent character
> codes, so you can represent strings. Defining the arithmetic operators
> is left as an exercise for the reader :)
> No-one in their right mind would actually use a system like this in
Why ?
> reality of course; but this is the absolute ground zero of relational -
> everything else can be defined in terms of relations (and their
> operators), booleans (and their operators) and a mechanism for defining
> new types and operators based on those.
What about the possible representations ?
> (In much the same way that all
> functional languages can be reduced to the lambda calculus, or even
> further to the SKI combinators.)
SKI and DEE/DUM trick have the same power ? Received on Tue May 30 2006 - 13:21:08 CEST