Re: The naive test for equality

David Cressey wrote:
> "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122960074.359597.49310_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I have to say I just don't understand why equality produces
> > so much ink.
>
> Instead, I'm going to suggest anagrams: a valid word with the same
> letters, but possibly permuted.
>
> Thus if I ask for anagrams of: "post", I get "stop", "pots", etc.
> If I extend the definition of anagrams just slightly, and define that every
> word is an anagram of itself, now the relationship is reflexive. It's
> clearly symmetric and transitive, so it's a flavor of "equality".

Sure. Specifically, it's an equivalence relation. Let's distinguish between the equality relation specifically and equivalence relations in general. Equality is a much simpler thing.

> But it's a flavor of equality where the combinatorics get quickly out of
> hand.
>
> And that's what interests me in this discussion.

I see. Well, maybe I don't actually. But I'm following you so far.

Marshall Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 16:07:54 CEST