abc@cs.nott.ac.uk (Andy Cheese) (04/22/88)
having agreed all integers are reals, and the only thing a float can be
is a float, lets look at BSI document PS/172 page 17 bip real/1.
real(X) succeeds if X is a real, it doesn't say succeeds if X is a float.
if i see the word "real" writen in english when refering to numbers i expect
it to mean real numbers.
real(3). fails
real(3.3) succeeds.
what is this nonsense.
float(3). fails
float(3.3). succeeds
this makes more sense.
oh Richard why do you (according to the document) say reals are the
opposite of complex, reals are complex numbers, or else you've changed
the meaning of the word "opposite", or you've been misquoted.
there might be a more up to date document than PS/172 for the description
of real/1 but i couldn't find it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JANET : abc@uk.ac.nott.cs Andy Cheese
ARPA : abc%nott.cs@ucl-cs.arpa Department of Computer Science,
University of Nottingham,
Functional vs. Logic Programming University Park,
If You Can't Decide Between Em, Nottingham.
-- Join Em NG7 2RD.
England.
Tel. No. : (0602) 484848 ext. 2765
--
Andy Cheeseok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/25/88)
In article <1214@robin.cs.nott.ac.uk>, abc@cs.nott.ac.uk (Andy Cheese) writes: > having agreed all integers are reals, and the only thing a float can be > is a float, lets look at BSI document PS/172 page 17 bip real/1. > real(X) succeeds if X is a real, it doesn't say succeeds if X is a float. > if i see the word "real" writen in english when refering to numbers i expect > it to mean real numbers. > > real(3). fails > real(3.3) succeeds. > what is this nonsense. > > float(3). fails > float(3.3). succeeds > this makes more sense. > > oh Richard why do you (according to the document) say reals are the > opposite of complex, reals are complex numbers, or else you've changed > the meaning of the word "opposite", or you've been misquoted. > > there might be a more up to date document than PS/172 for the description > of real/1 but i couldn't find it. I too expect the word "real" written in technical English to refer to the real numbers |R, which is why I have strongly suggested to the BSI committee that the predicate in question should be called float/1. [I'd like to point out that I was advocating this in 1984, before I ever saw anything about Quintus Prolog.] What PS/172 may be referring to is my comment on PS/140, in which the following text appeared (arguing _against_ the name 'real' for the floating-point type): "real" contrasts with "imaginary" and "complex", and it appears that the standard will not contain complex numbers. "Contrasts with" is not identical in meaning to "is the opposite of". To show a contrast between A and B, one has to show a "striking difference". Real numbers have no imaginary part; this is not true of complex numbers in general, and to my mind that is a "striking difference". The idea I had at the back of my mind was that Fortran, which has both a COMPLEX and a REAL type, has some sort of excuse. "Why is this variable declared REAL? Oh, because it has no imaginary part." If BSI Prolog had a complex type, so that complex(3.3_i_1.1) complex(3.3) and real(3.3) but not real(3.3_i_1.1) in which case real/1 would _mean_ this: real(X) :- complex(X), X =:= re(X). then 'real' would convey to the programming the idea "no imaginary part" (which would be true) rather than the idea "arbitrary member of the real number line" (which would be incorrect), and there would be some excuse for using 'real' rather than 'float'. In the absence of a 'complex' type, this contrast is not present in the programmer's mind (only the contrast between real and integer), and there is no such excuse. I believe that the most up-to-date and specific definition of the real/1 predicate in BSI Prolog is to be found in the Formal Specification, which appears in the latest issue of the Logic Programming Newsletter. (Spacing is, as usual, theirs, not mine.) Page 22, section 7, second column, "REAL predicate". execbip ( _, func ( real, X.nil ), empsubs) <= is--real ( X ). { I believe that this is a misprint for <= is-a-real ( X ). } in-error ( func ( real, X.nil ), Undef-message ) <= L-var ( X ). Page 13, section 1.28, first column, "real definition". is-a-real ( func ( N, nil ) ) <= |R-real ( N ). Page 22, section 7, first column We suppose that we have a denumerable infinity of clauses: ... |R-real ( X ). for all reals X. What this is intended to mean is anyone's guess: the set of floating-point numbers is finite for any machine, not infinite, but the set of reals is not denumerable. I pointed out in an earlier message that the Formal Specification provides no means of constructing irrational numbers, so perhaps 'real' is to be read as 'rational'.