[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we seem to narrow our
definitions of universal types to only those that have validatable
membership and universal representation. There are a lot of well-understood
types they fail both criteria.
Prime numbers.
I may have the latest and greatest quantum computer, and can churn out 700
digit prime numbers with ease. You still got your kludgy pentium (like the
way I'm setting up this example?), and I send you a couple of 700 digit
numbers. I tell you they are prime. You know what that means, and so you
plug them into your latest encryption scheme. You have to trust me, of
course, but let's say for a moment that I am trustworthy. What you do with
those numbers depends purely on concept, not on the ability to verify.
All that other stuff is just ways of saying that lexical mappings are
secondary. You have to have at least one in order to compute.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:07 PM
> To: 'Jeff Lowery'; 'John Cowan'
> Cc: aray@nyct.net; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Subtyping in XML
>
>
> Doesn't that make type synonymous with set?
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]
>
> In other words, types first and formost define a concept of
> membership.
> Such definitions must be formal and unambiguous.
>
|
