From owner-qed Thu Oct 27 09:25:06 1994 Received: from localhost (listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id JAA23788 for qed-out; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:24:05 -0500 Received: from chelm.nmt.edu (chelm.nmt.edu [129.138.6.50]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA23780 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:23:56 -0500 Received: (from yodaiken@localhost) by chelm.nmt.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id IAA12113; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 08:27:21 -0600 Message-Id: <199410271427.IAA12113@chelm.nmt.edu> From: yodaiken@sphinx.nmt.edu (Victor Yodaiken) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 08:27:21 -0600 In-Reply-To: Randall Holmes "Bit strings and semantics" (Oct 26, 4:52pm) reply_to: yodaiken@chelm.nmt.edu X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Randall Holmes , qed@mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: Bit strings and semantics Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov Precedence: bulk On Oct 26, 4:52pm, Randall Holmes wrote: Subject: Bit strings and semantics > >With a suitable ADT interface, bit strings can be made to look >like objects of the most amazing and diverse sorts!!! (lists >(even infinite ones!), trees, formulas of your favorite language, >arbitrary-precision integers, maybe even ZFC sets :-) > >So the argument against the semantic, non-formalist attitude is >belied by C. S. practice. We are not exhorted to remember that objects >of the usual CS types are implemented as bit strings in various odd >ways -- in fact, we are usually supposed to forget this!!! With dismal consequences for those who mistake floats for real numbers, for example. In any case, I don't want to make an argument for "formalism", I just want to recall that any theorem proving program will, ultimately, just be shuffling syntax.