Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

Bob Badour wrote:
> William Hughes wrote:
>
> > Chris Smith wrote:
> >
> >>Reordering to avoid repetition...
> >>
> >>William Hughes <wpihughes_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> > Here we have no restriction whatsoever on the output of an aggregate
> > function. This seems much more reasonable than your very
> > restrictive definition in which an aggregate function could only map
> > into A. Still there is a second more fundamental issue. What could
> > the binary form of a function that find the largest five elements be?
>
> A special case of restrict that doesn't aggregate anything.

But then you are left with a binary form that doesn't do anything. When you iterate this you will get a function of an arbitrary number of variables that doesn't do anything.

                        -William Hughes