Re: Operationalize orthogonality
Date: 5 Jun 2006 17:35:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1149554108.869372.276380_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Tony D wrote:
> By describing integers using booleans. Once you have integers
> described, you can (assuming you've defined the > operator on them)
> explicitly maintain order, wherever it's necessary to have order.
>
> We start from ground zero (booleans, relations, type generator). From
> ground zero, we can get to the basement (booleans, relations, type
> generator, integers). From the basement, we can clamber to the ground
> floor (booleans, relations, type generator, integers, characters). This
> is the point where things might start to get recognisable as a usable
> system, assuming generous helpings of syntactic sugar.
>
> It isn't a cop-out, but I did use in an earlier post the phrase
> "frightening degree of circumlocution". Hopefully you can now see just
> how frightening. But it is doable.
>
> This is very good news, because if we can reason about ground zero,
> then everything above it is on a very sound foundation. If we start
> building at the ground floor with no foundations or without thinking
> about the foundations, then sooner or later our reasoning about how the
> building is hanging together won't work anymore leading to
> unpredictable or difficult results trying to build additional floors
> (or heaven help us, an extension) or even collapse of the building.
On re-reading your first post of May 30, my only problem is with something you said _could_ be attempted but ought not to be. You thought it would "require a frightening degree of circumlocution", while I just can't see how it's possible at all. However, since you re-assert it's doable, my question remains. How? Received on Tue Jun 06 2006 - 02:35:08 CEST