> > No, the proof (whereever it is) would no longer type check. > > As I understand it, this is not necessarily true: > if the proof contains loops, it might type check, > even though it is not really a valid proof. You're right. If the proof is looping it will still pass as a proof. -- Lennart
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Olivier . Lefevre
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson