[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
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
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
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)
