From pycyn@aol.com Fri Dec 01 13:58:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 21:58:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 81340 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 21:57:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 21:57:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 21:57:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.72.5706bb5 (16339) for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 16:57:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <72.5706bb5.275978d2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 16:57:38 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Set operations? To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_72.5706bb5.275978d2_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_72.5706bb5.275978d2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/1/2000 1:49:07 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes: > So, was there ever any consensus on set operations? In particular, have > we agreed on a way to do either set XOR or set difference, because if > not, we don't have a complete set of set operations, and that would > suck. > No consensus that I see, though, if we stay out of MEX, there doen't seem to be a problem, since we have XOR and relative difference and complement and what you will. I suspect no one feels comfortable enough with MEX to poke around to be sure what is in there -- I would be surprised if relative complement is actually no there in some form or other (we were good on negations at one time). --part1_72.5706bb5.275978d2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/1/2000 1:49:07 PM Central Standard Time,
rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:


So, was there ever any consensus on set operations?  In particular, have
we agreed on a way to do either set XOR or set difference, because if
not, we don't have a complete set of set operations, and that would
suck.

No consensus that I see, though, if we stay out of MEX, there doen't seem to
be a problem, since we have XOR and relative difference and complement and
what you will.  I suspect no one feels comfortable enough with MEX to poke
around to be sure what is in there -- I would be surprised if relative
complement is actually no there in some form or other (we were good on
negations at one time).
--part1_72.5706bb5.275978d2_boundary--