Le 16-déc.-08 à 11:10, Professor James Davenport a écrit :
My concern with the <FMP> element is that is a tool used to describe the properties of a black box, where the symbol is any object satisfying all of the <FMP>s. As I understand it, additional <FMP>s are notequivilent to "alternative implementations"; in my understanding, theyare additional constraints on the symbol, and ALL constraints must be jointly satisfied.Correct.
That gives freedom, true, and it's a good thing!
I want to directly define what the black box contains, without necessarily describing any of its properties.But, if you are defining what it contains, aren't you therefore ALSO defining its properties?
erm... an FMP of the style:
function(x) = {do-bla-bla-in-a-concrete-way}
is a valid FMP, quite a constraining one, but a valid one which does
specify the value everywhere this equality holds!
The only bit you are missing compared to an implementation spec is the contraint that says that not only this property holds but that this is the way it's implemented! That's a useless constraint to my taste.
(and a good machine should be able to know, by theorems, that this FMP is valid even though it uses it's own, I wonder how NAG library or Maple could solve this challenge, for example, a nice one)
For instance, I want a function calledPlanck_bb_freq(nu, T), to compute an object's blackbody radiance at the given frequency and temp. Given SI units, there is only one correctimplementing expression.
I don't agree there's a single one even though there is probably only one found on earth a of today.
paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
