From dick@csci.csusb.edu  Tue May  9 05:43:49 2000
Received: from silicon.csci.csusb.edu (silicon.csci.csusb.edu [139.182.38.1])
	by swi.psy.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA26947;
	Tue, 9 May 2000 05:43:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: dick@csci.csusb.edu
Received: from blaze.csci.csusb.edu (blaze.csci.csusb.edu [139.182.38.10])
	by silicon.csci.csusb.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA24869;
	Mon, 8 May 2000 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dick@csci.csusb.edu)
Received: by csci.csusb.edu id UAA21870; Mon, 8 May 2000 20:32:16 -0700 (8.9.1 Berkeley Sendmail)
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 20:32:16 -0700
Message-Id: <200005090332.UAA21870@csci.csusb.edu>
To: jan@swi.psy.uva.nl, ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz, paul@inet.co.za
Subject: Re: handling small numbers
Cc: prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl, timm@csee.wvu.edu

I'm probably way out of line here but it suddenly stuck me
that this is rather like the closed world assumption written into
the implementation rather than the data base:
< (I = 2147483647, J is I + 1)
< then the answer "no" is *WRONG*; there really truly *does* exist a
< solution to that query.  It is just that there is a defect in the
< implementation such that the implementation cannot represent the
< correct answer. 

I personally regret that we can't switch arithemetics and keep
the same notation, finite, infinite, modulo N ... I've been wanting
ways to program in some of the stranger ones for a long time.

dick

