Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net From: Chris Smith Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:39:55 -0600 Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <1158916325.760757.265290@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1158938953.346259.299510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1158942149.683309.123640@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1158943301.858418.110200@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1158950770.353236.216420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1158970717.382742.21630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <87bqp7p1th.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <1159029707.585653.267600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <87odt6ms24.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <1159038469.119222.126060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <87wt7ul5db.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <1159045390.416589.158880@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <87r6y1lsav.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <1159104765.890225.310700@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <87vendjpuh.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <1159113680.871694.186260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87r6y1jioq.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <5WzRg.4821$GR.321@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <87mz8pj7id.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> <2mERg.4346$TV3.789@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067 X-Face: ;;`-R5u;\iOCiN_4(4'5@KML("+T/5Y&.ac#sfrljY3X,=rXTNPt's,h(P?hkvLZQT&sb=S RSz9?C4$P.[.oy:AwiqTdB5[&24t9'\K7ZkiQN3R-r,9_lryj3ng0E0?'LAa|B:@Y??V2' Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu sci.math:681160 comp.databases.theory:45310 Brian Selzer 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. -- Chris Smith