Re: Operationalize orthogonality


"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148986993.594626.295750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Indeed. Once you can represent integers, you can represent character
codes, so you can represent strings. Defining the arithmetic operators
is left as an exercise for the reader :)

No-one in their right mind would actually use a system like this in

Why ?

reality of course; but this is the absolute ground zero of relational -
everything else can be defined in terms of relations (and their
operators), booleans (and their operators) and a mechanism for defining
new types and operators based on those.

What about the possible representations ?

(In much the same way that all
functional languages can be reduced to the lambda calculus, or even
further to the SKI combinators.)

SKI and DEE/DUM trick have the same power ?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Operationalize orthogonality
    ... so you can represent strings. ... Defining the arithmetic operators ... is left as an exercise for the reader:) ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Some serious issues
    ... evidence. ... Without defining "the DNA-centric view" for the reader, ... It's a bit like defining "Rich" as "Anyone who ...
    (talk.origins)