Re: [rbw3@cse.nau.edu: Re: Junctive puzzles.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 ab and bc then ac. 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. Partial ordering relations are also transitive by definition. Of course, you can overload '' to be something other than ordering relation, but I'd invoke PEBKAC on that. :) Miro
Re: [rbw3@cse.nau.edu: Re: Junctive puzzles.]
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 ab and bc then ac. 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
Re: [rbw3@cse.nau.edu: Re: Junctive puzzles.]
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. Matt -- Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory. -???
[rbw3@cse.nau.edu: Re: Junctive puzzles.]
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] - Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:06:58 -0700 From: Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: perl6-language@perl.org Subject: Re: Junctive puzzles. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i On 2005.02.05.20.33, Autrijus Tang wrote: | (I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual | command line transcripts below. The leading ? does not denote boolean | context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also, | boolean literals are written in their Scheme forms.) | | In S06, the meaning of chaining comparison operators is defined as a | derived form: | | (a b c) == (a b) and (b c) unrelated to the overall topic, shouldn't this be (a b c) == (a b) and (b c) and (a c) anyway? Sorry if I missed this discussed previously. --Brock - End forwarded message -
