Re: [BLD] Signatures (BLD 7/20)

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
>>- In 2.1.3, the remark that f() and f can be interpreted differently and 
>>dialect may introduce axioms to make them equal should be clearly marked 
>>as irrelevant to BLD (where symbol f has either signature f0 or i, but 
>>not both).
> 
> why is it irrelevant?

I understood that, in BLD, the same symbol f can have either signature 
i{} or f0{()->i}, but not both. And thus, in BLD, whether f = f() or not 
is irrelevant.

My point was only about separating more slearly what is BLD and what is 
the more general framework in which BLD is defined.


> The problem is that if we do not use signatures then we have to split the
> set of symbols into subsets.

You mean, subsets like "function" (or even "x-ary function"), predicate, 
etc? If yes, ok, I get your point.

Christian

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 12:28:23 UTC