Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions
proofs and Type dependency
(New section: Huh?) |
(proofs and Type dependency) |
||
Line 8:
If we're merely talking about unsigned ints, then the data type for "even numbers" is of course the exact same thing (since the two sets are isomorphic). So the programming task boils down to writing functions for I/O that take an unsigned int and interpret it as "one half of the number we're talking about". Is that what is intended here? If not, then what exactly are we supposed to do here? You see me somewhat puzzled... [[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 17:45, 11 March 2008 (MDT)
: If you ignore the numbers given, the proposal still makes sense. I think the task was intended as an exercise of type dependency with proof systems. This possibility is supported by the project pages for Coq, Agda2 and Twelf. (How is it that all the links on this page are uncreated, I wonder...) It doesn't look like an imperative problem. It could be done in C++ with classes and operator overloading, for example. The proof is whether or not the proper code compiles. It looks like I'd intended to do that, but I recall life getting in the way that week. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 19:40, 11 March 2008 (MDT)
| |||