FOM: ordered pair: Bourbaki
Vedasystem at aol.com
Mon May 3 18:47:43 EDT 1999
In a message dated 5/3/99 3:15:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Martin Davis
> Abstract data types are fine so long as concrete implementations are
> possible. And once you choose a particular implementation, extraneous
> irrelevant facts will appear.
Defining an abstract data type, one can (and usually does) hide its concrete
implementation, so extraneous irrelevant facts cannot appear. One can also
define a pure abstract data type, without a concrete implementation.
It is convenient because a pure abstract data type can have many
different concrete implementations (as well as a theory can have many
interpretations) -- a pure abstract data type is actually an axiomatic
Victor Makarov, Brooklyn
More information about the FOM