Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin wrote:
> Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> > Don Mikulecky replies:
> >
> > yes your notation for Cartesian Product is clearer
> >
> > you will note that all my sets in the definition I used from Arbib's
> > category theory are FINITE. Clealy, continuous intervals must be dealt with
> > differently. This is more an issue of representation than a new conclusion
> > as I see it. Am I missing something?
> > Don
>
> Actually, I have second intentions on proposing such derivations from finite
> (discrete) to continuous. My point is ... if they are not MACHINES, then what
> are they ? Maybe ... complex systems ? Or, if not complex systems, then what ?
> Ricardo
>
> --
> //\\\
> (o o)
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO--(_)--OOo-=-=-+
> \ Prof. Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin /
> / Intelligent Systems Development Group \
> \ DCA - FEEC - UNICAMP | INTERNET /
> / Caixa Postal 6101 | gudwin@dca.fee.unicamp.br \
> \ 13081-970 Campinas, SP | gudwin@fee.unicamp.br /
> / BRAZIL | gudwin@correionet.com.br \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
> \ URL: http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/ /
> / Telephones: +55 (19) 788-3819 DCA/Unicamp (University) \
> \ +55 (19) 254-0184 Residencia (Home) /
> / FAX: +55 (19) 289-1395 \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+