[om] DefMP elements

[Richard Fateman]

Why not just say to people defining FMPs that some brain-dead OM
applications may be unhappy if FMPs are recursive, and so people
should consider non-recursive ones to be preferred.  I forget
what FMP stands for, so I may be using the term incorrectly.

Forbidding recursion seems like a bad idea, and people will
view it, perhaps correctly, as showing that OM is strictly
less capable than the systems it is supposed to define.

In addition to be verbose, complicated, etc.

RJF


Professor James Davenport wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Naylor wrote:
>  
>
>>1) Dissallowing self reference during a defining FMP, therefore
>>dissallowing recursive definition.
>>    
>>
>Quite so, in a defining FMP. An evaluating FMP does allow recursive 
>references. The distinction is made so that a system knows whether the 
>expansion of the FMP will always terminate, or will only terminate on 
>concrete nstances (and therefore, if the instance is not concrete, a 
>fixed-point operator will be required, which is probably beyond the scope 
>of most OM-capable applications. 
>  
>
>>2) Dissallowing multiple defining FMPs, therefore dissallowing different
>>but logically equivalent FMPs, e.g. a definition in terms of integrals
>>versus a definition in terms of recurence relations.
>>    
>>
>One could have several FMPs, but the point of the unique defining one is 
>that the author of the CD is saying that this particular FMP can be used 
>to eliminate this concept in favour of "simpler" ones.
>James
>--
>om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
>Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
>Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
>Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems
>  
>

--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems