Re: Modeling question...
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:57:43 GMT
Message-ID: <b8pTk.398$jr4.342_at_edtnps82>
>
> Well I agree with that, but note that I actually stated that 'n' was a
> *name* of a variable. The variable itself has more to with the
> existence of the tuple
>
> value(n,10)
>
> which records the current value of the variable named n.
> ...
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:57:43 GMT
Message-ID: <b8pTk.398$jr4.342_at_edtnps82>
David BL wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:35 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>> paul c wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> Here, 'n' is a value, not a pointer (as far as the RM is concerned), ... >> Oops, meant to say 'n' is a value, not a variable.
>
> Well I agree with that, but note that I actually stated that 'n' was a
> *name* of a variable. The variable itself has more to with the
> existence of the tuple
>
> value(n,10)
>
> which records the current value of the variable named n.
> ...
If what you say is pertinent, then the current value of variable n is 'n'!
> A name of a variable is a value and can be thought of as a pointer
> value.
>
> I have the impression you think of variables and pointers as physical
> concepts, not logical ones. Is that right? ...
Hardly. But there is no point in theory unless we can apply it. If a machine gets the same results as we do when we apply the concept, I'm content. That's why I like extensions, to confirm the same result I get, intensions are too easy for different people to interpret differently. Received on Sat Nov 15 2008 - 01:57:43 CET