Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:22:22 -0300
Message-ID: <46d85c11$0$4059$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> There's a nice short and clear description in:
>
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/publikationen/techreports/2001/iam-01-005
>
>
>
> Will do. ;-)
>
> -- Jan Hidders
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:22:22 -0300
Message-ID: <46d85c11$0$4059$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 31 aug, 17:21, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 31, 2:13 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On 30 aug, 14:08, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>>>I use a similar notion to def in my own work, but am lacking any >>>>references for it. You say that it is an established (or at least >>>>recorded) approach - do you have links to texts, or academic >>>>references? Or does it have a more formal nomenclature that I could >>>>search for > my normally leet googling skills are not serving me well. >> >>>I'm sorry to say that at the moment I cannot tell you where I got it. >>>The thing that comes closest is Beeson's logic of partial terms, which >>>has an explicit definedness operator for terms. But it lacks the idea >>>of a syntactic restriction that allows you to keep the normal >>>reasoning rules of FOL. >> >>"The Foundations of Constructive Mathematics" is not an easy book to >>get hold of...
>
> There's a nice short and clear description in:
>
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/publikationen/techreports/2001/iam-01-005
>
>
>>>Of course, if you really want a formal reference I might consider >>>writing a small technical report about it. ;-) >> >>I think you should make this a priority! Oh, and don't forget to >>mention me in the acknowledgements as a motivating factor in its >>generation ;)
>
> Will do. ;-)
>
> -- Jan Hidders
Oh, you publication whores, you! Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 20:22:22 CEST