Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:30:04 GMT
Message-ID: <0FSVi.163004$th2.122096_at_pd7urf3no>
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> paul c wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> So far, it looks like a peculiar kind of constraint to me. As
>>>> somebody else say, go ahead and attack it, I can take it!
>>>
>>>
>>> { 0, {} }
>>> { 1, {} }
>>> { 2, {} }
>>> { 3, { -1, { 3, {} } } }
>>
>>
>> I think I agree with all of those and thanks. But I still think if I
>> remove A from the definition, there is only one possible tuple, ie.,
>> one that we can ever express an extension for:
>>
>> something like,
>>
>> {{}}
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:30:04 GMT
Message-ID: <0FSVi.163004$th2.122096_at_pd7urf3no>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> paul c wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> So far, it looks like a peculiar kind of constraint to me. As
>>>> somebody else say, go ahead and attack it, I can take it!
>>>
>>>
>>> { 0, {} }
>>> { 1, {} }
>>> { 2, {} }
>>> { 3, { -1, { 3, {} } } }
>>
>>
>> I think I agree with all of those and thanks. But I still think if I
>> remove A from the definition, there is only one possible tuple, ie.,
>> one that we can ever express an extension for:
>>
>> something like,
>>
>> {{}}
>
> I already gave you a whole bunch of examples for that one.
>
> {}
> {{}}
> {{{}}}
> {{{{}}}}
> {{},{{}}}
> {{{}},{{{}}},{{{{}}}}}
>
> etc.
Thanks again. I think I might see the distinction you're making. I'll have to ponder it. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 04:30:04 CET