# Re: Proposal: 6NF

Date: 19 Oct 2006 19:23:32 -0700

Message-ID: <1161311012.069944.118770_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

vc wrote:

> "return new ModFour((val+a.val)%4)" is called a bug or

*> cheating because you used a function defined on the entire
**> domain NxN (where N is a subset of the natural numbers
**> implemented by the computer) to generate a result which is
**> undefined for the (2,3) pair. At this point, it may be
**> useful to recall what a function is and apply the memory,
**> if any, to the addMod4 operation.
*

BAHAHAAAA!!! I love it! Marshall provides a concrete example that smashes your idiot arguments and you call it "cheating". Capital! Priceless!

Ask yourself, what if any "mathematics" describes the construction Marshall gave? What of other time honored data used in computers such as integers with truncated division?

You and C'mode see to think the answer is none. That these structures are not part of any "mathematics". And you bitch and cry about "accepted definitions" etc etc *yawn*.

I have news for you. The rest of us are going to move on and extend mathematics to describe such structures, to provide a framework for analyzing and reasoning about them. And we are going to call this extended concept of math "type theory". Whether you like it or not. You and C'mode can sit in some dreary corner and cry more "But those are really integers", "You cheated! That's not fair!", "That's not the accepted definition of 'binary operation'", "Whaaahaaahaaa".

By the way, Marshall. This comes back to your point a while back about computer science being the field of engineering that applies that science of mathematics. These dreary whiners seem quite perturbed that computer science is intruding on their limited "one true way".

Keith -- Fraud 6 Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 04:23:32 CEST