Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <3632:Mar1803:27:1491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 91 03:27:14 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.183323.27020@engage.enet.dec.com> <24547:Mar1506:28:2591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <-B0A9_3@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <-B0A9_3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <24547:Mar1506:28:2591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> > No, you're wrong. Suppes, for example, defines functions so that you can
> > say ``The set of x such that exp(x) is smaller than or equal to zero is
> > empty.'' You don't have to qualify x as ``x in the reals'' for the
> > statement to make sense and be perfectly correct.
> That's because "real exp(real);" is programmed into everyone's head. If
> you have "complex y;" then "y <= 0;" is a syntax error.

No, it isn't, at least not in the works of Suppes (and Tarski), but I
was referring to the function exp on the reals.

---Dan