On 2005.02.08.19.07, Matt Fowles wrote: | Brock~ | | | On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very | > mathematically sound. Sorry. | > | > --Brock | > | > ----- Forwarded message from Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- | > | > (a < b < c) ==> (a < b) and (b < c) and (a < c) | > | | I disagree, I think that that is both mathematically sounds and | perfectly logical.
Yes... but perhaps instead of the above transform we should just make sure that < is transitive in the first place... so that no matter what if a<b and b<c then a<c. OTOH... perhaps we are working with partially ordered sets (rather than completely ordered sets)? In that case maybe the above suggestion is useful after all. --Brock
