comp.lang.functional Google Group

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-07T03:10:48Z

i'm talking about the standard categorial exponentiation
in the category of set
it's as you describe
[link]
of course
it's the modern foundations of computer science
it's why compsci works in cartesian closed categories
to define things like domain theory and denotational semantics

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-07T02:18:07Z

Better argument may be that if operation is not associative, then,
when applied iteratively the result is no longer well defined. Sure
with non associative operation '*' the expression a * b * c is
ambiguous!

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-07T02:14:48Z

Could you please be more specific what algebraic structure you have in
mind? Specifically, what are the elements ("element of" prompts that
perhaps sets)? Given two sets X and Y, they define the set of
functions X->Y; is that the operation you suggested?
If my interpretation is wrong, may I ask for amn example? In the

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-07T01:34:13Z

not at all
comp.lang.functional could be talking about
any of many quantifiers
obviously i guessed right
but with only 21 returned sources
in a quoted google search of the term
(some of which are your post)
you must understand that it is not common
i would think
since i explicitly wrote which operation i was discussing

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-07T01:03:57Z

Church lambda abstraction (lambda calculus should be evident from
comp.lang.functional in the newsgroup list:-)
Exponentiation is unary operation. In binary form -- exp(x,y) --
exponentiation is not associative, that would also disqualify it.

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-07T01:01:52Z

That used to be true before the 20th century.

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-06T22:31:22Z

if i understand what you mean by lambda quantifier
(as in the standard form on which eval's work through application
e.g. lambda calculus lambdas
with their well known universal properties)
then i would expect the exponential to be the corresponding operation
in other words
given a objects X and Y

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T21:31:58Z

John refered to the people who make copies, not to the knowledge
workers.
If programmers earned so much money with their art, they wouldn't be
giving their work for free on the Internet. Some musical artists also
start to do the same.
Those who earn a lot of money are the editors, the production
companies.

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T21:14:25Z

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:07:07 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam- s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
Who said anything about stealing?
I was thinking more along the line of Ritchard Stallmans GNU incentive.
To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.
--------------
John Thingstad

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T21:07:07Z

Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

Re: What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-06T21:06:16Z

No.
-- m

What binary operation lambda quantifier corresponds to?

2008-09-06T18:52:22Z

Observation: all quantuifiers correspond to some binary algebraic
operation. Consider:
1. Sigma summation and integral are iterative forms of binary plus.
2. Pi-capital product is iterative form of multiplication.
3. Lattice supremum is iterative form binary meet.
5. Lattice infinum is iterative form binary join.

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T14:36:58Z

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:11:55 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam- s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:
These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the artist's
don't.
No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
margins.
You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T14:11:55Z

Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor
writers, nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs,
etc., etc.
Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the

Re: Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

2008-09-06T11:09:19Z

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:01:17 +0200, skrev Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net>:
But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
--------------
John Thingstad