On 05/07/06, Al Major <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Garvelink, Barend wrote: > > Paraphrasing a colleague of mine: > > > > If the interval [09:00,09:00) can be considered the empty set in > > discrete maths, then > > - Every interval contains the empty interval (a set contains another > > set if it contains all the other set's elements) > > but that would imply that [11:00, 12:00) (or any other non-empty > interval) would contain [9:00, 9:00) (and _every_ other empty interval). > intuitively that doesn't sound correct.
Thanks for the maths explanation. I think that it only helps however in highlighting the dubiuos nature of our existing empty interval concept. We've got it though, and can't very well remove it. And it is certainly true that both of the following are _counter-intuitive_ - [11:00,12:00) not contain [11:30, 11:30) - [11:00,12:00) contains [09:00, 09:00) > i still think that the "real" solution requires "completing" the > interval types. I think thats a separate issue - you still end up with the same problem, just multiplied. Perhaps I'll just have to pick a definition! Stephen Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Joda-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
