It seems to me that "sameSex" is reflexive on the set of all humans. The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the same sex as him or her self.
Relexivity is a feature of an equivalence relation. They are used in a lot of theorems and, for instance, the output of a causal search (in the context of statistical causal reasoning) is an equivalence class of causal models. On the other hand, some mathematicians might ask, "What has the world got to do with it?" Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:33 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Frank Wimberly wrote: > I am not aware of any definition of "discrimination power" in this > context. > For example, `sameSex' is not reflexive on the set of all humans. It is reflexive on the set of women or the set of men. And the relation `sameSpecies' would be reflexive on the set of all humans. The relation `sameSex' has more discrimination power than `sameSpecies'.. (It's not clear to me why I would want to organize the world into reflexive sets in the first place, other than to simplify things that are the same on certain dimensions.) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
