From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-04 01:48:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!mtvwca1-snh1.ops.genuity.net!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea.. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:50:01 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.60.247 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1044352089 219.88.60.247 (Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:48:09 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:48:09 NZDT Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33748 Date: 2003-02-04T22:50:01-08:00 List-Id: "Grein, Christoph" wrote in message news:mailman.14.1044350541.3911.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > I'm out of words with this statement... > > Why on earth do you think that each and every trait of a superset is going to > hold in subsets? LSP? Wasn't it what started this thread (or sub-sub thereof)? Mind you, I'm actually arguing against it if you haven't noticed. > That's a very peculiar definiton of "subset", to say at least. See below. It seems we are talking two different definitions of [sub]sets: You seem to imply that only *values* count in defining subsets. My point is that *operations* on them are just as if not more important. > > > argue that they are a subset or real *values* but that's > > not the same thing. > > > > You could also define an operation F that takes two > > integers and returns a generic real but that would also > > mean that integers do not posess a property critical > > to the definition of the real numbers.