Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
> > option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
> > H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
> > the beat path of H.
>
> I'm not crazy about recursive definitions.
>
> Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
> defeats option F, or if there is another option H which defeats G, AND
> option F defeats H.
>
> With this definition you can mentally "build up" a beat path, applying
> F, G, and H to different options as you iterate. Your definition does
> have the advantage of functioning better as pseudocode, though. :)
AFAICT, your version only gives one level of transitivity, which does
not necessarily suffice. An explicitly iterative version would have
to read along the lines of
Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
defeats option F, or if there is a sequence of other options H_1,
..., H_n (where n may be 1) such that H_1 defeats F, G defeats H_n,
AND for every i from 1 to n-1, H_{i+1} defeats H_i.
which I'm not convinced is better.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
