Bob Badour wrote:
>"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.ua.ac.be> wrote in message
>news:3e6dba19.0_at_news.ruca.ua.ac.be...
>>
>> But you could argue in much the same way that bags are an abstraction
>> from sets. Just like a while can be simulated with goto's, you can
>> simlulate bags with certain sets, so having explicit bags allows you to
>> ignore certain arbititrary details in the simulation. So would you agree
>> that bags are at a higher level of abstraction then sets?
>
>Actually, you have that backward.
>
>{ 0, 1 } == { 1, 0 } == { 0, 1, 1 } == { 0, 1, 0 } == { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
>0, 1, 1 }
>
>All of the above bags are low-level physical representations of the same
>set.
Sure, and a bag can also be represented by different sets. You seem to be
assuming that "being at a higher abstraction level" is an asymmetric
relation. It isn't.
Received on Tue Mar 11 2003 - 15:21:28 CST
