Re: General semantics
From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0f1ed2ee-1c8e-4d52-936a-f88175545d87_at_o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0f1ed2ee-1c8e-4d52-936a-f88175545d87_at_o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On 20 mei, 22:51, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
> Or one would have to leave the much desirable D&D requirement that "if
> x == y, then for all f : f(x) == f(y)".
Incidentally, this "requirement" is simply nothing more than an inevitable consequence (/just a rewording) of what it means in mathematics to be a function ... Received on Thu May 20 2010 - 23:31:05 CEST