Re: Proving Axiom Correct, "state of the art" report
Martin Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mathematics.axiom.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 31/03/17 05:34, Tim Daly wrote: > Consider the Axiom Domain NonNegativeInteger. NNI roughly > corresponds to the Type theory "Nat" construction. They differ > in that Axiom uses Lisp Integers whereas Type theory uses > Peano arithmetic (a zero and a successor function) but for > our purposes this does not matter at the moment. Perhaps there are issues around this that will matter? Given that there are two formulations of each algebra, one like this: zero: () -> $ succ: ($) -> $ and one like this: + ($,$) -> $ If one form is needed for inductive proofs and the other form for applied mathematics. Could Axiom hold both forms in a single category/domain and switch between them as needed? Martin