Atze van der Ploeg
atzeus at gmail.com
Thu Jan 1 15:06:34 UTC 2015
Nope you're right. Indeed uncompatible with the field structure. Now I'm
I now understand your question, but do not immediately know the answer.
On Jan 1, 2015 4:02 PM, "Tom Ellis" <
tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2013 at jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 03:52:26PM +0100, Atze van der Ploeg wrote:
> > If we do not require that (a <= b) && (a >= b) ==> a == b (where <= is
> > from the total ordering and == is from the equality relation) then it is
> > trivial, take the total ordering forall x y. x <= y that i mentioned
> > earlier.
> > So the compatiblity with equality (you say field structure) is not
> > the point, in fact antisymmetry means that the ordering corresponds to
> > equality relation.
> > Clear now or did I misunderstand?
> Here is my proposed equality and ordering on the complex numbers:
> data Complex = Complex (Double, Double) deriving (Eq, Ord)
> Does this violate any of my requested conditions?
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe