It is clear that some form of functional abstraction is being invoked in the definition of Nom1, above. Otherwise, the expression "x > <x>" would indicate a constant function, one that maps every x in its domain to the same sign or code for the letter "x". But if this is allowed, then it seems either to invoke a more powerful concept, lambda abstraction, than the one being defined or else to attempt an improper definition of the naming function in terms of itself. | It is clear that some form of functional abstraction is being invoked in the definition of Nom1, above. Otherwise, the expression "x > <x>" would indicate a constant function, one that maps every x in its domain to the same sign or code for the letter "x". But if this is allowed, then it seems either to invoke a more powerful concept, lambda abstraction, than the one being defined or else to attempt an improper definition of the naming function in terms of itself. |