Re: Notions of Type
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:24:28 GMT
Message-ID: <wBnFg.51180$pu3.600216_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I wouldn't call it a requirement; I've just noticed it as a common
> occurance. There is also the occasional unary operator, such
> as NOT in the boolean algebras. I can't think of any trinary
> operators off hand.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:24:28 GMT
Message-ID: <wBnFg.51180$pu3.600216_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
>>Marshall wrote: >> >>>In fact, I lack a pithy definition of algebra. (And worse, there are >>>many senses of the word.) But one thing is common, and that >>>is a datatype and binary operators that are closed over that >>>datatype. Sometimes associativity of those operators is >>>considered a requirement, but it seems a distant second >>>to closure. >> >>Why binary? I sincerely doubt that requirement.
>
> I wouldn't call it a requirement; I've just noticed it as a common
> occurance. There is also the occasional unary operator, such
> as NOT in the boolean algebras. I can't think of any trinary
> operators off hand.
There are plenty. Substring, conditional (if/else) etc. Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 20:24:28 CEST