Re: On Formal IS-A definition
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 03:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e30efac3-0f4d-4e94-8602-76ede0148f2f_at_k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On May 10, 5:21 pm, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of how I try to define a set of variables, it seems I can
I don't see any reason to interpret values (and that includes language-
-values) as anything other than themselves. One should use
explicit functions to map values to other values as one requires.
E.g. don't pretend a tuple with attributes cx,cy,r is a circle.
Instead use a function to give it that semantic. E.g.
circle(point(0,0),1).
Interpreting a value as a variable or vice versa is only good for
creating confusion. It is noteworthy that no function can map a value
to a variable or vice versa because functions only map values to
> only define a set of values and interpret it variably. I find Bob's
> reference to Clinton more significant now than at first. I suspect
> that asserting what a variable, a set, or anything else 'is' defers
> the interpretation and representation of the concept.