Re: The horse race

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Anyway, set theory doesn't discount order

>> A simple relation is said to be unordered. If it represents ordered
>> data - then what? It's not a relation? Or it must be divided into
>> n-relations? And then what comes from that?

>I have explained how this works in detail

And I asked - A simple relation is said to be unordered. If it represents ordered data - then what? It's not a relation?

In your previously 'detailed' explanations, do you find any answer for this very simple question? In fact, in another message, I thought we had received the answer. Perhaps I misunderstood you, there.

>> >> Perhaps for other purposes that set may be unordered.

>> >That's right.

>> You're saying it always is, by definition.

>Correct.

Then here, as well. But let me see if you agree with it stated this way:

No set of tuples as instances in an entity or records in a table or file can be termed a, set, can be termed an ordered set, or a partially ordered set, if they are in proper order. Since a set cannot suffer proper order, whatever is arranged in proper order cannot be a set.

>> They would be meaningless without it. It is intrinsic to both the
>> semantics and the syntax of that group of paragraphs. They must appear
>> in - proper order.

>You can't think of a single useful thing you could do with
>the paragraphs out of order?

You can't be serious. Try it in your next message to me. And we'll - discuss it.

>> >The pair (S, R) is called an ordered set.

>> And set that is ordered.

>I couldn't parse that.

Do you mean that you don't know what that means?

>> But in the example, elements of R are
>> inextricably part of the elements of S,

>Since I extracated them, I don't see how you can call them
>inextricable.

Alright, now you got ME sayin it - I couldn't pa . . well, I won't say it.

>> and furthermore would be
>> ordered by S-order, which supposedly can't be true in either case? It
>> has to be one or the other.

>I couldn't parse that.

Is there a badge flashing on and off below your chin?

>> >The set S is not called ordered;

>> But it is, nonetheless.

>Incorrect by definition.

But that's not a fire. Building - what building?

>The problem here being that you can't seem to accept the
>idea that implicit order could be abstracted away--that it's
>not *required* for anything.

Like I said - try it. Try just that in your next message. And we'll see.

As I said:

>> I don't know if I'm supposed to be Abbott or Costello in this.

>> It must hold to its proper order. It means nothing without it.

>The wc example refutes this.

Then consider this very message the counter-example.

>You are fixated on the one the author produced, but there are
>others, include longest to shortest, alphabetical, etc.

Like I said . . and we'll see.

>> Anything else would be characterized as computer
>> error, a potential virus attack, somebody drunk on the job. The
>> structure must be respected and retained with the text, links, markup
>> and what have you. Without it, you have nothing but a 1000 unnumbered
>> punch cards spilled onto the floor.

>What if the task at hand was to identify how many cards were in
>the given deck?

Just try it. Since you can't use cards, anymore, you'll have to randomize lines in some routine, say some javascript on one of your web pages.

And get back to me on that. What happens when you do that? Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 07:45:52 CET