Re: Values have types ??

Bob Badour wrote:
> "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <lgcdutra_at_terra.com.br> wrote in
> message news:pan.2003.09.06.21.57.39.613286_at_terra.com.br...
>

>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 06:15:47 -0700, Costin Cozianu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Go back to your mathematical books and show me a single instance where 2
>>>has an associated type specified for it. I bet you won't find it.

Only in your pet theory.

  The
> value is a real rational whole natural complex prime even integer, and most
> people have so thoroughly internalized this knowledge by highschool it
> seldom needs mentioning. However, the symbol's declared type is often
> important as in the following mathematical expression: ( 3 ÷ 2 )
>
> If the symbols 3 and 2 represent real or rational numbers, the expression
> evaluates to 1.5. If the symbols 3 and 2 represent integers or naturals, the
> expression might evaluate to 1.

Oh boy. So you invented a formal notation that confuses 2 -- I wonder what type it has -- distinct operations:

• rational division
• integer division

And now you may invent type annotations on operrands to disambiguate the operator.

Great feat, dude.

But you just debitated the incredible stupid suggestion that

        2 as integer
and

        2 as rational
are different mathematical entities.

What happened with your subtyping relations ? They went down the drains. So your logical consistency.

  Le singe peut trouver ceci dans un bon
> nombre de livres de mathématiques.

L'imbecil est toujours imbecil. Received on Sun Sep 07 2003 - 02:38:53 CEST