|
From: | Ralf Hemmecke |
Subject: | [Axiom-developer] Re: FW: data structure vs. mathematical structure |
Date: | Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:03:26 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025) |
On 11/14/2006 10:17 PM, Page, Bill wrote:
On November 14, 2006 12:01 AM Gaby wrote:| | > From constructive mathematics point of view, the only things| > that are required for a set are:| > | > (1) say how to build element of a set| > (2) equality test.| > Bill Page wrote: | No, there is a lot more to the mathematics of set than that.| It would mean that all sets are finite and that is quite far | from the case.On Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:20 PM Gaby wrote:How do you arrive to that conclusion?
I thought I was stating something obvious.
I remember I said that "Set" is somehow a bad name for a domain in Axiom that only implements "(the collection of) finite sets of elements of a given type T".
Or (from sets.spad): ++ A set over a domain D models the usual mathematical notion of a ++ finite set of elements from D. Although i: Integer and s: FinitePowerSet Twould be in perfect analogy if one read ":" as "element of", then to go on "l: List T" would mean "List" is the container of all finite sequences (with some information about their representation (linked list)). It's soon getting confusing. So I would rather choose "FiniteSet". But then (except proper classes) everything is a set. Why would one need a domain of sets? "SetCategory" is more important.
And in Axiom it is an approximation anyway, since it is Set(T), ie a collection of things of a common type T. The name "Set" is probably an exception one could accept.
Ralf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |