On 06/07/06, Nils Kilden-Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/5/06, Al Major <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > if you look at the interval [9:00, 9:00) as the limit of [9:00, 9:00 + > > epsilon) as epsilon goes to zero, you have a situation where each of the > > intervals on the way to the limit (i.e. epsilon > 0) overlaps [9:00, > > 10:00) and is _not_ contained in [10:00, 11:00). i'm arguing that the > > limit [9, 9) should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the > > behavior of the sequence that defines it [9, 9 + e). this is what i mean > > by _intuitive_ behavior. i.e. [9:00, 9:00) overlaps [9:00, 10:00) and is > > not contained in [10:00, 11:00). > > > > I don't see how [9:00, 9:00) can be legal, provided that for a given > interval x to y, y >= x. Since "[9:00" is exactly 9:00, and "9:00)" is a > some value less than 9:00, we now have y < x. This implies that intervals > such as [9:00, 8:00] should be legal, which is just as nonsensical.
Actually, I like Al's definition. It effectively defines [9:00, 9:00) as [9:00, 9:00.0000000000000000001) The other definitions then fall out naturally, eg [9:00, 10:00) contains [9:00, 9:00.0000000000000000001) etc Stephen Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Joda-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
