This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 07:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > And for clarity: my suggested tweak is also not sufficient to provide a > > weak ordering. > > Rob > > Rob, > > Your suggested tweak provides a total ordering. The "unordered(x,y)" > [!(x < y) && !(y < x)] relation is false for any x != y [since either > (x < y) or (y < x) always holds]. So all equivalence classes have one > element: "unordered(x,x)" is always true. You get transitivity trivially, > as "unordered(x,y) && unordered(y,z)" is only true if x == y == z, and > then you also have "unordered(x,z)". > Igor It doesn't. It fails because it doesn't obey the requirements for an equivalence class. The ordering it provides is 100% dependent on the order of the comparisons. Thats fine when two elements are in the same equivalence class, but this will shuffle elements outside such classes. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt>.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |