Отправлено с iPad
24.12.2011, в 18:50, Alexander Solla <alex.so...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> In the same way, denotational semantics adds features which do not apply to a
> theory of finite computation.
And why exactly should we limit ourselves to some theory you happen to like?
>
>
> > The /defining/ feature of a bottom is that it doesn't have an
> > interpretation.
>
> What do you mean by "interpretation"?
>
> You know, the basic notion of a function which maps syntax to concrete
> values.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
But (_|_) IS a concrete value.
> But they ARE very similar to other values. They can be members of otherwise
> meaningful structures, and you can do calculations with these structures.
> "fst (1, _|_)" is a good and meaningful calculation.
>
> Mere syntax.
So what?
> > Every other Haskell value /does/ have an interpretation.
>
> So, (_|_) is bad, but (1, _|_) is good?
>
> I did not introduce "good" and "bad" into this discussion. I have merely
> said (in more words) that I want my hypothetical perfect language to prefer
> OPERATIONAL (model) SEMANTICS for a typed PARACONSISTENT LOGIC over the
> DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS which the official documentation sometimes dips into.
Well, that's a different story. But it seems to me that the term "Haskell-like"
won't apply to that kind of language. Also, it seems to me (though I don't have
any kind of proof) that denotational semantics is something that is much
simpler.
> It is clear that denotational semantics is a Platonic model of constructive
> computation.
Could you please stop offending abstract notions?
> Then you are mistaken. I am talking about choosing the appropriate
> mathematical model of computation to accurately, clearly, and simply describe
> the language's semantics.
Well, domain theory does exactly that for Haskell.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
