Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions
→Quantifiers
(→Quantifiers: re) |
|||
Line 198:
::: Inductively defined types (e.g. a linked list) have an infinite set of values. (An implementation will generally be limited by the word size of the underlying machine, but a proof should be independent of this and work for an arbitrary word size.)
::: Might I suggest you read a good book about the foundations of mathematics? Perhaps my terminology will seem less ambiguous to you after this. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 21:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: You have overgeneralized my statement. Overgeneralizations are, generally speaking: wrong.
:::: The issue I raised was not "computers are incapable of working with 'infinities'". The issue I raised was "computers can only represent finitely many distinct values. By leaving out that "distinct" part, you ignored my entire point.
:::: It seems, though, that you are saying that you accept as valid a type system where an infinity of the symbolized values are not implemented by the implementation -- where only finitely many values symbolized by the type are implemented. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||