[REBOL] Re: Rebol values (continuing the discusion)
From: gabriele::colellachiara::com at: 19-Apr-2005 17:57
Hi Ladislav,
On Monday, April 18, 2005, 6:26:01 PM, you wrote:
LM> IOW, when we have got a representation, it is time to "forget" about it
LM> and to try to describe the properties that do *not* depend on the
LM> representation. Some properties become "accessible" if we "forget" the
LM> details. (It is not obvious why this is true.)
Sure. And, there's space for discussing the representation too,
sometimes. The reason why some of us here tend to spend more time
discussing the representation instead of the number is that we're
more interested in REBOL than in math. ;-)
But, you're right that we shouldn't confuse the two things, and
probably I did sometimes.
LM> Would you consider it right to say that 1 / 3 and 2 / 6 are two distinct
LM> but identical rational numbers? (This surely has got some "rational"
LM> core, because set-theoretically these *are* two distinct representations
LM> of one rational number).
If we refer to the character strings "1 / 3" and "2 / 6" in your
email message, they are two distinct representations of the same
number.
LM> there are many distinct representations of one rational number, the
LM> rational number in question is just one rational number.
I agree. However, were we discussing rational numbers, or how
REBOL represents them? ;-)
>>This problem goes away as soon as you say "two distinct
>>representations of the same value".
LM> Yes! That is what I am trying to say all the time! "Two distinct
LM> representations of the same value" is it.
So we got to an agreement, in the end. :) Took so much time if you
think about it... when did we start this discussions?
It's interesting anyway how many discussions are actually most of
the time terminology discussions. The main reason is that
different people don't always share the same definitions for the
terms they use. Or, they just don't care and write a message
quickly, trying to explain with whatever term seems to work. ;)
Maybe I do this more often than I should.
>>I agree that an "abstract", i.e. implementation-independent,
>>description of REBOL is useful; however, only Carl could really
>>provide us with something like that.
LM> I have shown above, that in a specific case he didn't succeed to do it
LM> just because he didn't "forget enough implementation details". Moreover,
LM> my article inspired his short Same? function description, see the
LM> evolution of the Same? function help. This proves (for me at least) that
LM> the last statement needn't always be true.
Yes, but what I mean is that we can never say for sure what is an
implementation detail and what is not.
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer
Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/
