[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Alessandro Baretta <a.baretta@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Coinductive semantics |
Don Syme wrote: > To take a very non-serious example, think of the rules that parents lay > down for their children (which are often recursively referential, let > alone contradictory :-)). Induction corresponds to "you may only do > what follows from the rules", whereas co-induction corresponds to "you > may do anything that is not excluded by the rules". For an empty set of > rules an inductive child can do nothing, a co-inductive child can do > anything. My son is a coinductive child with a buggy rule evaluator ;) Alex -- ********************************************************************* http://www.barettadeit.com/ Baretta DE&IT A division of Baretta SRL tel. +39 02 370 111 55 fax. +39 02 370 111 54 Our technology: The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml) <http://www.asxcaml.org/> The FreerP Project <http://www.freerp.org/>