I would say that bijection (a one-one correspondence) is not exactly the same as "roundtripping".
For example: IBM-1047 (single byte EBCDIC) -> UTF-8 - you can round-trip this, since you can take any character in the source code page, and get a UTF-8 character. If you take any of *those* 256 UTF-8 characters, they will map uniquely back to where they started. But, you cannot have a round-trip from UTF-8 -> IBM-1047 (since the source set is MUCH bigger). But, I still don't understand the results that Charles is seeing; doesn't look like round-tripping :-( Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Roberts, John J <[email protected]>wrote: > >Why does IBM have this compulsion to be different from everyone else > and invent its own terminology rather than using a conventional, > well-understood word such as "bijective"? > > Because "bijective" is not so well understood by anyone born before 1952 > or so. The term relates to SET Theory, which was a big part of the "New > Math". My younger brother, born in 1953 was exposed to this, but I was > not. Actually, I only learned of the term (and the noun "bijection") on > this forum, this past year. > > But, of course we have digressed far from Charles original question. > Sorry. > > John > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
