"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| I can not agree. Because something cannot always be computed does not | mean that it is therefore ill-defined. This is especially true in | mathematics. I believe you're putting confusing the issues. Function equality is well-defined in classic mathematics (set theoretical). But that definition is almost useless from algorithmic perspective. | For example, the assumed equality of functions, i.e. the | concept of a commutative diagram, is essential for category theory. `category theory' is a medium, not the message. By itself it is void of content. | And we have not problems (in principle) in dealing with exact | representations of real numbers in computer algebra systems. Sure, we do. | > I don't see a point in build a tower of hacks over hacks. | | I do agree with you there! Let's fix the original hacks. :-) Please, don't hesitate to submit patches fundamentally grounded in category theory and of practical use. | > The fact that Mapping belongs to SetCategory is largely | > historical accident. I would rather ditch that relationship out. | > | | I think SetCategory is mis-named. It does not provide anything | substantially more than BasicType. Would you propose that Mapping not | even belong to BasicType? The question is not whether foo belongs to bar. The question is what does bar mean? What is the semantics of BasicType? -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
