Re: cdt glossary - TABLE

dawn wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>dawn wrote:
[snip]

> It so happens that I have such a definition, but it is quite long and
> (the margin of) this posting is too small to include it ;-)

You just want to keep the community busy :-)

At http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html I read:
> The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem marks the end of a mathematical
> era. Since virtually all of the tools which were eventually brought
> to bear on the problem had yet to be invented in the time of Fermat
> Eric Weisstein's World of Biography, it is interesting to speculate
> about whether he actually was in possession of an elementary proof
> of the theorem. Judging by the tenacity with which the problem
> resisted attack for so long, Fermat's alleged proof seems likely
> to have been illusionary. This conclusion is further supported
> by the fact that Fermat searched for proofs for the cases n==4
> and n==5, which would have been superfluous had he actually
> been in possession of a general proof.

>>>The software development industry certainly uses the term table to
>>>refer to a number of representations of data that do not align with the
>>>above definition.  There are some characteristics of all (at least
>>>most) uses of the term, however.  I would think we would want the term
>>>"table" to be defined to include implementations of tables in a variety
>>>of languages and tools to avoid miscommunication.
>>>
>>>Off the top of my head (rather than researching it right now), most
>>>uses of the word table would have the reader visualizing a
>>>two-dimensional matrix of values.  Some would include a header for such
>>>values while others would have a separate object that is a table
>>>header.
>>
>>Again, a broader 'TABLE' entry is welcome.

This is a nice start (actually a second start - I'll see how I can edit in the other remarks). Thank you.

>>>David  Cressey wrote:
>>>>In particular, the word "collection" is, in this context, more useful than
>>>>either "list" or "array".
>>>>
>>>>The question of "ordered" goes beyond the definition,  IMO,  even though
>>>>it's an interesting one.
>>>
>>>Agreed.  Cheers!  --dawn
>>
>>That's two against being clearer on the specifics
>>of the involved collections in this glossary entry.

Nothing to be sorry for - I was just counting. At this point I feel I can find arguments both ways. I'll ...

>>I'll just wait a few more weeks - maybe there will be other >>suggestions/opinions on this. Received on Mon Jul 18 2005 - 15:46:25 CEST