4 ms·
This doesn’t sound correct to me. The original statement is, Let ϕ(x) be a property provable about objects x of type T. Then ϕ(y) should be true for objects y o
by Koshkin 5y ago
This doesn’t sound correct to me. The original statement is, Let ϕ(x) be a property provable about objects x of type T. Then ϕ(y) should be true for objects y of type S where S is a subtype of T. Here, objects of a base class are replaced with objects of derived classes.
- rfrey 5y agoI interviewed a guy once who used rho instead of phi when I asked this question. What a bozo.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> This doesn’t sound correct to me. Yet the GP says exactly the same thing as you said. He just ignored that the property belongs to the base class.
- kragen 5y agoThe GP said "usable interchangeably", which is vague enough to admit a wide variety of interpretations, including the more rigorous one Koshkin posted.
- marcosdumay 5y agoYet he got unambiguously declared wrong...