[Haskell-cafe] Category Theory woes
joerg.rudnick at t-online.de
Thu Feb 18 17:08:16 EST 2010
my actual posting was about rename refactoring category theory;
closed/open was just presented as an example for suboptimal terminology
in maths. But of course, bordered/unbordered would be extended by e.g.
«partially bordered» and the same holds.
Alexander Solla wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Nick Rudnick wrote:
>> Back to the case of open/closed, given we have an idea about sets --
>> we in most cases are able to derive the concept of two disjunct sets
>> facing each other ourselves, don't we? The only lore missing is just
>> a Bool: Which term fits which idea? With a reliable terminology using
>> «bordered/unbordered», there is no ambiguity, and we can pass on
>> reading, without any additional effort.
> There are sets that only partially contain their boundary. They are
> neither open nor closed, in the usual topology. Consider (0,1] in the
> Real number line. It contains 1, a boundary point. It does not
> contain 0. It is not an open set OR a closed set in the usual
> topology for R.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe