Do they? Haskell is a programing language. Therefore legal Haskell types has to be represented by some string. And there are countably many strings (of which only a subset is legal type representation, but that's not important). All best Christopher Skrzętnicki On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 17:09, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andrew Butterfield <Andrew.Butterfield@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
To my naive mind this sounds suspiciously like the set of all sets, so it's too big to be a set.
Here you're probably thinking about the distinction between countable
and
uncountable sets. See also:
No - it's even bigger than those !
He is thinking of proper classes, not sets.
Yes, that's my hypothesis: type constructors take us outside of set theory (ZF set theory, at least). I just can't prove it.
Thanks,
g _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe