Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval
Date: 17 Sep 2006 14:59:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1158530381.095592.294640_at_i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Thanks for the feedback. As to your point 1, I freely admit the
> failing. It is an area I am currently working on, and still need
I think instead that people who hide behind insults do that because are scared to do an open confrontation with scientific arguments.
I am always ready to confront and admit my errors because I have a sincere love for what is right and I have no problem if this is stated by another person.
Ok I found this reference:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/j04alg.html
"Idempotency, zero elements and arities"
A binary function f(x,y) is called idempotent if for all x
f(x,x) = x
According to the above definition:
countDistinct (5,6) = 2
Therefore we have found 1 case where:
(3) "Not Duplication Sensitive function" => "idempotent"
is false. Therefore (2), (1) are false.
(The inverse implication of (3) is clearly true)
Do you see errors in the above argument?
-P Received on Sun Sep 17 2006 - 23:59:41 CEST