sa1

I think they do, and as you mentioned you can explicitly remove such a restriction. Sets and types are once again two different kinds of objects in mathematical theory, and a set-theoretic type doesn’t seem to be based either on set theory or type theory.

Sets and types are foundational mathematical concepts so I’m looking for how elixir’s types fit in that context. Union and intersection are not something that belongs only to sets.

Unions, intersections and negations are available in types as well and are by no means exclusive to sets. The distinguishing feature of a set vs type is that a value belongs to just one type while it can belong to several sets.

What do set-theoretic types mean? Aren’t types an alternative approach meant to avoid the paradoxes with sets?

Is it just being used as a marketing term?

The whole readme is LLM written, it might be a useful project but it might as well be a fever dream, with no easy way to tell.

But clean room reverse engineered code can have its own license, no?

> the equivalent of SEO on them

It’s called GEO and it’s becoming a thing.

Zed also downloads a remote agent.

There’s also gitbutler for this kind of workflow, a bit more visual.

Could you go into some details into how it's wrong and how you interpret this statement? Prima facie, it does seem correct to me.

Handed out? She built it.

There are such cases in uv as well, and I’ve hit them quite often when I didn’t specify lower bounds (especially for boto3).

Finite Monkeys Theorem is not the same as the Infinite Monkeys Theorem

They didn't "test" the concept of infinity. They said that the results of the infinite monkey theorem are well known, and they wanted to see what happens in the finite case.