Newest at the top
| 2026-01-15 22:09:49 +0100 | <dolio> | Not that every relation from A to B is a function from A to B. |
| 2026-01-15 22:09:22 +0100 | <dolio> | jreicher: Also, relations are functions in that they are maps into a collection of truth values. |
| 2026-01-15 22:08:39 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-15 22:07:38 +0100 | <EvanR> | you can get a relation for any function also lets you avoid subtyping |
| 2026-01-15 22:06:56 +0100 | <dolio> | jreicher: But does every relation contain a function? |
| 2026-01-15 22:04:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | sometimes taking the place of |
| 2026-01-15 22:04:33 +0100 | <EvanR> | how concepts interrelate is more interesting than "what they are really" |
| 2026-01-15 22:03:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | :D |
| 2026-01-15 22:03:35 +0100 | <EvanR> | math entities are a pure construction of the mind |
| 2026-01-15 22:02:54 +0100 | <int-e> | First-order logic has many-sorted variants. There are algebras with more than one carrier set and operators that aren't homogenous either, like vector spaces. |
| 2026-01-15 22:01:55 +0100 | <int-e> | "in mathematics" - there is no such thing really; mathematicians will take whatever view is most convenient in a context. In classical logic, predicates can and will be used as functions. Logicians who want to allow logics without the law of excluded middle will disagree. |
| 2026-01-15 22:01:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | you can get a relation for any function, then functions don't need to be implemented as literal relations if you don't want them to be! |
| 2026-01-15 21:55:46 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-84-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-01-15 21:55:31 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-15 21:54:35 +0100 | <jreicher> | monochrom: a function is a relation, but the converse is not true |
| 2026-01-15 21:53:04 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-84-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-15 21:53:03 +0100 | <c_wraith> | it's closed! |
| 2026-01-15 21:52:59 +0100 | <lambdabot> | LT |
| 2026-01-15 21:52:58 +0100 | <c_wraith> | > LT `compare` GT |
| 2026-01-15 21:51:08 +0100 | <jreicher> | thenightmail: I'm fairly sure in mathematics the comparison "operators" are not operators at all. In algebra an operator on a set produces another element from the same set. Comparison, on the other hand, is a predicate. |
| 2026-01-15 21:50:21 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-15 21:49:50 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-01-15 21:46:48 +0100 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@2001:b07:646b:5fed:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) (Client Quit) |
| 2026-01-15 21:46:01 +0100 | <[exa]> | -XLexicalKinds |
| 2026-01-15 21:43:37 +0100 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@2001:b07:646b:5fed:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) Enrico63 |
| 2026-01-15 21:43:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-01-15 21:43:35 +0100 | jreicher | (~joelr@user/jreicher) jreicher |
| 2026-01-15 21:42:59 +0100 | <monochrom> | TypeDirectedLexicalResolution? >:) |
| 2026-01-15 21:42:52 +0100 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) divlamir |
| 2026-01-15 21:42:25 +0100 | <humasect> | yeah |
| 2026-01-15 21:42:23 +0100 | <dolio> | That's innovation. |
| 2026-01-15 21:42:11 +0100 | <dolio> | Anyhow, as I said, Haskell can take it to the next level by making lexing undecidable. |
| 2026-01-15 21:41:03 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2026-01-15 21:40:35 +0100 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2026-01-15 21:38:47 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-15 21:37:42 +0100 | <davean> | dolio: https://blog.reverberate.org/2013/08/parsing-c-is-literally-undecidable.html "C++ grammar: the type name vs object name issue" and others |
| 2026-01-15 21:36:21 +0100 | <dolio> | I guess perl has to actually evaluate code. |
| 2026-01-15 21:36:01 +0100 | <dolio> | davean: Does C++ do that, too? I thought that was perl's distinction. |
| 2026-01-15 21:31:43 +0100 | collide2954 | (~collide29@user/collide2954) collide2954 |
| 2026-01-15 21:30:56 +0100 | collide2954 | (~collide29@user/collide2954) (Quit: The Lounge - https://thelounge.chat) |
| 2026-01-15 21:30:37 +0100 | target_i | (~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) target_i |
| 2026-01-15 21:29:41 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) peterbecich |
| 2026-01-15 21:28:09 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2026-01-15 21:26:08 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-84-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-01-15 21:25:54 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-84-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-15 21:23:15 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-15 21:21:20 +0100 | <monochrom> | (I had known of: choose one: EM, double-negation elim, Pierce.) |
| 2026-01-15 21:21:17 +0100 | <davean> | dolio: and end up like C++? Lol |
| 2026-01-15 21:18:18 +0100 | <monochrom> | Oh nice, one more way to restore classical logic. :) |
| 2026-01-15 21:14:14 +0100 | <ncf> | cool |