Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?
Date: 25 Sep 2006 08:34:06 -0700
> Marshall wrote:
> > Furthermore, you seem to have
> > completely misinterpreted Phil's point, which as I understand
> > it was that the minimizing property does not indentify a unique
> > value, but in some cases a range of values. Your complaint
> > about Phil's point seems to be that the minimizing property
> > does not identify a unique value. Since that was Phil's point
> > in the first place, it is altogether unpersuasive in refuting him.
> Please reread what was written earlier. His statement was:
> " I'm saying that the property does not always
> uniquely define a median ("*the* value", emphasis mine), and therefore
> cannot be used as the definition therefor"
> Apparently the implication was that some other definition would allow
> to compute the median uniquely.
Apparently not, if one reads the rest of the thread. Although I can see how you could reach that conclusion initially.
> If that was not the implication, why
> jump at the OP and try to ridicule her for using the mentioning
> property ?
Because the way she used it indicated that it produced a unique value, which it doesn't, and that it was the definition of the term, which it isn't.
> My point sumply was that neither the minimizing property, nor any
> other median definition defines the median uniquely in certain cases.
That seems in complete agreement with what Phil was saying.
Marshall Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 17:34:06 CEST