[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why purely in haskell?

Achim Schneider barsoap at web.de
Tue Jan 15 06:24:52 EST 2008

jerzy.karczmarczuk at info.unicaen.fr wrote:

> Your example with the King on the chessboard goes along the doctrine
> professed by Achim S., "forbidding" something. But this word,
> "legality", etc. is a juridic term, something not so meaningful in
> math. OK, you are forbidden to try 0/0. But you DO. So what?
> You claim that math doesn't say "undefined", mathematicians do, etc.
> Now, does MATH say "Hey! there is no sense in what you are doing!"?
> But math as an abstract domain, does it have "built-in" the notion of
> sense neither. You say: "you are out of system/sense". I say "you get
> no answer". I believe that my standpoint is more operational. 
I believe it's basically the same point.
Legal, btw, is meant along the lines of "it is not allowed for an apple
to reinterpret gravity and fly into earth's orbit". Natural, not
human-made law.

(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. 

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list