You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It should be possible to reference numbers directly without referring to $number. Instead, as already noted in #46, certain sets should specify how to interpret numbers as elements of that set, by referencing e.g. $number, $inverse, and $quotient (see below).
The "Number tuple" macro would become unnecessary.
Ideally, we want to extend this to integers and rational numbers (including decimal notation); see #46. The type of every number should be determined automatically.
However, we cannot remove the $number macro entirely because when a number appears without context, it is not clear how to interpret it.
Can we somehow extend this to arbitrary (semi)rings? It seems we would need to attach the information to $Carrier then.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It should be possible to reference numbers directly without referring to
$number
. Instead, as already noted in #46, certain sets should specify how to interpret numbers as elements of that set, by referencing e.g.$number
,$inverse
, and$quotient
(see below).This would have several advantages:
Ideally, we want to extend this to integers and rational numbers (including decimal notation); see #46. The type of every number should be determined automatically.
However, we cannot remove the
$number
macro entirely because when a number appears without context, it is not clear how to interpret it.Can we somehow extend this to arbitrary (semi)rings? It seems we would need to attach the information to
$Carrier
then.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: