From: Matthias Blume (find@my.address.elsewhere)
Subject: Re: [OT] Finns and education 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Date: 2004-09-08 18:49:15 PST 


richter@math.northwestern.edu (Bill Richter) writes:

>    compositional -- at least not the one you gave.
> 
> That's absolutely false, Matthias.

It is absolutely true, and you are absolutely wrong.

>    And the reason for this is the simple fact that your supposedly
>    compositional definition _relies_ on an existing non-compositional
>    definition.
> 
> That's true, but it has nothing to do with compositionality.

IT DOES!

> I explained very carefully what must be meant by cls definition of
> compositionality last time (& before), & you didn't respond.

"what must be meant"

Yippie!

>    You can't start with a non-compositional definition, pile on some
>    gratuitous identity function in a compositional manner, and then
>    claim the whole thing is compositional!
> 
> This is pretty vague, and doesn't shows any mathematical competence,

Right.  It does not show any mathematical competence -- on your part.

>  The E_i & f_ij are just names
> that we humans use to refer to various sets, and there is no
> mathematical meaning to the phrase "These sets are not defined in
> terms of those sets."

False.  (Hint: What do you think the field of mathematical logic is
about?)

>    You can't start with a non-compositional definition, pile on some
>    gratuitous identity function in a compositional manner, and then
>    claim the whole thing is compositional!
> 
> The fact that my functions E_i and f_ij were originally defined in
> OpS-fashion has absolutely nothing to do with whether the collection
> of functions { f_ij } is a compositional definition of the E_i.

False.

> Now David Rush said he thought that Will had written:
> 
>         'Bill has met the definition of compositionality in a way
>          that can only be considered a joke'
> 
> That's false. 

Go, look at his FAQ.  It's right there.

> [ ... ]  Arguably, my semantics isn't interesting.
> I like my semantics, but if nobody else does, there's little I can do
> to protest, and the thread would've been short.

You have proved at length that just because you have nothing to
protest does not mean that the thread would be short.

So, Bill, here is a bargain.  Go and learn ML.  Then go and read the
code that I posted to this group in connection with this topic.  As
proof of the fact that you understood it, tell me what the (minor and
for this discussion unimportant) error in my code (version 2) is.  Not
before you have done this I will consider any more of what you write
here (or anywhere).

Good bye.

Matthias