Re: How is this collection called?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:30:58 +0200
Message-ID: <406A9DE2.D88C80CC_at_michael.mendelsohn.de>
Paul schrieb:
> I think the problem is you've not defined exactly what you mean by
> "binary aggregation operator".
x is-in b => x is-in A*B breaks.
> There's no reason why a "union" of bags or lists has to be defined in
> the usual way, it's just an arbitrary choice that fits in with our
> vague conceptual ideas about what a union is.
With my aggregation constraint, I believe the collections defined by Mikito's set and bag axioms can only be set and bag, and that you cannot choose an aggregation operation that breaks these definitions.
I think that the list is not so useful because you can define
aggregators to keep or break the third axiom; and you can (with ease)
define the aggregator to always keep a*b=b*a if there's an ordering on
the collections.
Now wait, I think I just contradicted half of what I wrote above! :-P
So could I have a collection and aggregation with
a*a!=a a*b=b*a a*(b*c)!=(a*b)*c
?
Michael
-- Feel the stare of my burning hamster and stop smoking!Received on Wed Mar 31 2004 - 12:30:58 CEST