Pretend to be PHP

If you want to sell Haskell, then just add a few PHP features, like for-loop with curly braces, and brand Haskell as a new PHP spin-off.

The reason why such audacious pretention would work is because people criticize language just because it isnt PHP, like the following guy
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/643565-why-all-the-hype-about-ruby-on-rails/
>I personally have nothing against the Ruby language, but relatively few companies exclusively use it, and as a result there is few Ruby developer jobs available.

>>2

Why not just use Ruby without Rails? It can do PHP's job just fine even as just a CGI script.

He is known for his role in developing Zermelo–Fraenkel axiomatic set theory and his proof of the well-ordering theorem.

Exponentiation is given by

    |X|^|Y| = |X^Y|

where X^Y is the set of all functions from Y to X.

One of Cantor's most important results was that the cardinality of the continuum \mathbf c is greater than that of the natural numbers {leph_0}; that is, there are more real numbers R than natural numbers N. Namely, Cantor showed that \mathbf{c} = 2^{leph_0} > {leph_0} (see Cantor's diagonal argument or Cantor's first uncountability proof).

Union of the sets A and B, denoted A ∪ B, is the set of all objects that are a member of A, or B, or both. The union of {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4} is the set {1, 2, 3, 4} .

From set theory's inception, some mathematicians have objected to it as a foundation for mathematics. The most common objection to set theory, one Kronecker voiced in set theory's earliest years, starts from the constructivist view that mathematics is loosely related to computation. If this view is granted, then the treatment of infinite sets, both in naive and in axiomatic set theory, introduces into mathematics methods and objects that are not computable even in principle.

 In the even simpler case of a collection of one set, a choice function just corresponds to an element, so this instance of the axiom of choice says that every nonempty set has an element; this holds trivially. The axiom of choice can be seen as asserting the generalization of this property, already evident for finite collections, to arbitrary collections