Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:22:29 -0700
Message-ID: <1160684549.404641.50790_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>


Marshall wrote:
> On Oct 10, 5:28 pm, "David Cressey" <dcres..._at_verizon.net> wrote:

> This is another one of those questions that can't be separated
> from its theory. Arithmetically, 2 and 2.0 are identical.
> Type-theoretically, they might not be. Depending on the particular
> type system, they might or might not be assignment compatible, or
> have some kind of subtype relationship.
Type theorically? Typing is independent of value evaluation which is operator derivation of Integer domain of values from Reals domain. In such case, no restriction or redefinition being applied on ' =' operator therefore 2.0 (Real Domain) and 2 (derived by resriction) are perfectly equal. Relations too can be equal...as all functions can be equal...

No need for additionnal mental masturbation...

> And what kind of int 2 are we talking about? 8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit,
> arbitrary? Signed or unsigned? What size float? It's true the
> integers are a subset of the reals, but we don't (and mostly
> can't) have a type that works the same as the reals in a computer.
> We could say that the 32 bit ints are a subset of double but
> not of float, etc. etc.
Totally irrelevant mathematically speaking. Reals are reals period.

> As an aside, I'd love to see a system in which n-bit integer
> was a single generic definition, instantiated with different
> values of n. I think it might not actually be too hard to do.
>
> Floating point arithmetic isn't associative. I hate that.
Maybe that's because floating point is not arithmetics just computing.  

> Marshall
Received on Thu Oct 12 2006 - 22:22:29 CEST

Original text of this message