Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:40:37 GMT
Message-ID: <FWfQg.31545$9u.286622_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>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.
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:40:37 GMT
Message-ID: <FWfQg.31545$9u.286622_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
William Hughes wrote:
> 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.
Bullshit.
> When you iterate this you will get a function of an arbitrary > number of variables that doesn't do anything.
Whatever. Plonk. Received on Wed Sep 20 2006 - 20:40:37 CEST