Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval

kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com ha scritto:

> If it's not fear, then what is it? Pride? Lack of intelligence?

I repeat this for the last time

(1) Consider n=2, (n is the number of operands),

       what is count distinct of { 3 , 3 } ?

(2) Answer 1. Agree ? If yes proceed.

 So. Does Count Distinct satisfy this definition:

(3) A binary function f ( x , y ) is called idempotent

      if for all x ,
                              f ( x , x )  =  x        ?




(4)   count distinct of { 3 , 3 } = 1, which is different from 3.

      It doesn't.

(5) So, for n=2 Count Distinct is NOT idempotent

(6) Now we know that Count Distinct is "Replication Insensitive"

      Therefore,
(7) "replication Insensitive" => "binary idempotent"

      does not hold.

(8) Therefore. The notion of idempotence and "Replication
insensitivity"

    are not the same thing, for n=2.

(9) We have just seen that for n=2.

    This is sufficient to say that equivalence does not hold.

  Tell me the precise statement which is wrong   and prove that it is wrong. Show me your intelligence.

-P Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 18:54:32 CDT