On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
On 2010-04-14 13:03, Alexander Solla wrote:
If you're willing to accept that distinct functions can represent the same "moral function", you should be willing to accept that different "bottoms" represent the same "moral value".
Bottoms should not be considered values. They are failures to calculate values, because your calculation would never terminate (or similar condition).
Let's not get muddled too much in semantics here. There is some notion of value, let's call it proper value, such that bottom is not one. In other words bottom is not a proper value. Define a proper value to be a value x such that x == x. So neither undefined nor (0.0/0.0) are proper values In fact proper values are not just subsets of values but are also quotients. thus (-0.0) and 0.0 denote the same proper value even though they are represented by different Haskell values. -- Russell O'Connor http://r6.ca/ ``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''