On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > AFAICT, your version only gives one level of transitivity, which does > not necessarily suffice.
I have retracted it.
> An explicitly iterative version would have to read along the lines of
>
> Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
> defeats option F, or if there is a sequence of other options H_1,
> ..., H_n (where n may be 1) such that H_1 defeats F, G defeats H_n,
> AND for every i from 1 to n-1, H_{i+1} defeats H_i.
>
> which I'm not convinced is better.
I don't know. It's pretty close to Anthony's, which I support, except I
think I see away to avoid the term "beat" altogether (and "dominate",
too).
A minimum of jargon is, I think, a feature.
--
G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
pgpG2Unm2TeuO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
