# Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 10:20:17 +0300

Message-ID: <878xk8jtu6.fsf_at_nonospaz.fatphil.org>

Chris Smith <cdsmith_at_twu.net> writes:

> Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote:

*> > There is no fallacy, except in your statement. Only a fool would accept at
**> > face value any assertion made by a liar, a lunatic or a buffoon. The
**> > introduction of profanity and personal attacks leads one to question the
**> > motivation, intelligence, and maturity of the speaker. It is prudent,
**> > therefore, for one to reevaluate any argument put forth by such a person,
**> > taking that adolescent behavior into account.
**>
**> Definitely.
*

> > You wrote, "There are some sets, such as {0, 1}, where every value between 0

*> > and 1 (including both endpoints) is minimum."
**> >
**> > Unless 0 and 1 belong to some domain other than integers, whole numbers or
**> > real numbers, it is clear that 0 is the minimum value of the set {0, 1}. I
**> > don't know where you came up with the idea that both values are minimum.
**>
**> That statement was made, though, in the context of defining the median.
**> The definition put forth (I don't recall by whom) is that the median is
**> the number c such that the sum of the distances of each member of the
**> set from c is minimized. In that context, the statement makes sense.
**> When considering the set {0, 1}, any real number c from zero to one
**> minimizes the sum of distances of members of the set from from c.
**>
**> Not meant to encourage juvenile behavior, but there was context for that
**> statement.
*

Phil

-- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 09:20:17 CEST