<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Daniel Fischer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.is.fischer@web.de">daniel.is.fischer@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Am Sonntag, 25. Januar 2009 00:55 schrieb Conal Elliott:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> > It's obvious because () is a defined value, while bottom is not - per<br>
> > definitionem.<br>
><br>
> I wonder if this argument is circular.<br>
><br>
> I'm not aware of "defined" and "not defined" as more than informal terms.<br>
<br>
</div>They are informal. I could've written one is a terminating computation while<br>
the other is not.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="Wj3C7c">
> Which definition(s) are you referring to?<br>
><br>
> - Conal</div></div></blockquote><div><br><div>I think I smell the same sort of circularity in this shifted "per definitionem" argument as well. Here's how I imagine making this implicit argument explicit:<br>
<br>Define "terminating" (or undefined) to mean "/= _|_" and "not terminating" (undefined) to mean "== _|_". Then, since () is obviously terminating (defined), it follows that () /= _|_ .<br>
<br></div></div></div>Is that the argument you had in mind?<br><br>Does anyone see the flaw in that logic (and hence the purpose of "obviously").<br><br> - Conal<br><br>