[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes... but perhaps instead of the above transform we should just make
sure that < is transitive in the first place... so that no matter what
if a
Partial ordering relations are also transitive by definition.
Of course, you can overload '<' to be something other than orde
On 2005.02.08.19.07, Matt Fowles wrote:
| Brock~
|
|
| On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| > Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
| > mathematically sound. Sorry.
| >
| > --Brock
| >
| > - Forwarded message from Brock <[E
Brock~
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
> mathematically sound. Sorry.
>
> --Brock
>
> - Forwarded message from Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> (a < b < c) ==> (a
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:06:58 -0700
From: Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: perl6-language@per
