From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Fri Dec 01 14:06:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 22:06:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 3829 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 22:04:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 22:04:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 23:05:07 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10512 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:08:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012012208.RAA10512@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Set operations? In-Reply-To: Mess from pycyn@aol.com of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:57:38 EST." <72.5706bb5.275978d2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:08:12 -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell pycyn@aol.com writes: >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. We do? Outside of MEXs? How, exactly? -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Despite not getting very emotional about it, the fact that quantum entanglement doesn't allow transmission of information is probably the most profound dissapointment I've ever experienced. -- RLPowell