Am Freitag 19 Februar 2010 02:48:59 schrieb Nick Rudnick: > Hi, > > wow, a topic specific response, at last... But I wish you would be more > specific... ;-) > > >> A *referrer* (object) refers to a *referee* (object) by a *reference* > >> (arrow). > > > > Doesn't work for me. Not in Ens (sets, maps), Grp (groups, > > homomorphisms), Top (topological spaces, continuous mappings), Diff > > (differential manifolds, smooth mappings), ... . > > Why not begin with SET and functions...
Sorry, too many Bourbakists in my ancestry, Ens == SET (french: ensemble). > > Every human has a certain age, so that there is a function, ageOf:: > Human-> Int, which can be regarded as a certain way of a reference > relationship between Human and Int, in that by agoOf, I fail to see a reference here. In particular, I don't see how the one object (set of humans) refers to the other object (set of integers). I suppose the word reference doesn't mean the same for us. For me, a reference is an alias (as in e.g. Java's reference types) or a mention/allusion/citation (as in e.g. "The first verse of this poem is a reference to Macbeth's famous monologue 'Is this a dagger ...'"), a couple of other things I can't now put into english words. None of which I deem similar to a function from one set to another. > > * Int reflects a certain aspect of Human, Okay. > and, on the other hand, > * the structure of Human can be traced to Int. I don't understand that. > > Please tell me the aspect you feel uneasy with, and please give me your > opinion, whether (in case of accepting this) you would rather choose to > consider Human as referrer and Int as referee of the opposite -- for I > think this is a deep question. > > Thank you in advance, > > Nick _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
