Huh, there must have been something in the water leading up to this.
Also from 1998 is this paper, "Calculus in coinductive form" and neither of these cites the other.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/705675
These are indeed very similar. Thanks for the link!
The math is a bit over my head, but this formulation seems more difficult than the one I'm familiar with. For example, x^2 is represented as 0::0::2 instead of 0::0::1 (because 2! = 2) and x^3 is represented as 0::0::0::6 instead of 0::0::0::1 (because 3! = 6). Is there a benefit to that?
