Re: Undefined terms
Matt Kaufmann (kaufmann@CLI.COM)
Mon, 22 May 95 15:43:05 CDT
Actually, I think there may still be a difference between your [5] and
Harrison's [2]. I interpreted [2] to allow different "default" values for
different function applications, but I interpreted your [5] as a proposal to
use one error value for all occasions, kind of a "bottom" (in the Scott sense).
In that sense, your [5] is a sort of strengthening of [1], in that you are
fixing one value for all "erroneous" applications. I suppose that one could
also view your [5] as a sort of [4], i.e., "bottom" is a way to make sense out
partiality. Now to confuse the matter, I can't help but mention that this ties
into [3], in the sense that one could conceive of a "bottom" of each type.
Stop me before I write again!
-- Matt