Re: PIZZA time again :-)
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0200
Message-ID: <43196b35$0$11065$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> it seems like you are asking for
> sort ([[salami, mozarella, onions] intersect [mozarella, onions,
> salami]], M).
>
> sort based on what ordering? You could define the ordering to be
> whatever the first list has as the ordering unless that information is
> missing from the first in which case you need to use the second,
> enzovoort. But I'd say that it would be better to choose a word other
> than 'sort' for this new operation.
>
> My point is that you cannot merge these two lists with the information
> provided because the ordering on these two lists does not define a
> unique ordering of the domain of the intersection (or union) of these
> lists. On the other hand, maybe someone has expanded the use of the
> term 'merge' and I'm just being ignorant.
>
>
> Careful -- you are bordering on flirtation there, and I'm from stoic
> Dutch roots. My people have populated some of the most conservative
> areas in the U.S. having left the Netherlands because of the immorality
> in cities such as Amsterdam. (Now they can only participate in such
> activities when making a pilgrimage back to the motherland.)
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0200
Message-ID: <43196b35$0$11065$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
dawn wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>dawn wrote: >>>mAsterdam wrote: >>>>dawn wrote: >>>>>mAsterdam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>Assume >>>>>>>>1. there is a meaningful (or at least consequential) >>>>>>>>difference between: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> toppings([salami, mozarella, onions]). >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> toppings([mozarella, onions, salami]).
[snip merge]
>>>Perhaps it should do the same thing as a sort on a set where no >>>ordering has been defined - ? >> >>Which would be - in the context of lists?
>
> it seems like you are asking for
> sort ([[salami, mozarella, onions] intersect [mozarella, onions,
> salami]], M).
>
> sort based on what ordering? You could define the ordering to be
> whatever the first list has as the ordering unless that information is
> missing from the first in which case you need to use the second,
> enzovoort. But I'd say that it would be better to choose a word other
> than 'sort' for this new operation.
Any suggestions?
>>Could you please (try to) translate what you mean onto >>the realm of lists?
>
> My point is that you cannot merge these two lists with the information
> provided because the ordering on these two lists does not define a
> unique ordering of the domain of the intersection (or union) of these
> lists. On the other hand, maybe someone has expanded the use of the
> term 'merge' and I'm just being ignorant.
Heh - except for my abuse in this thread, not that I am aware of. Maybe merge is not such a good word for this either. To me it is, but I am not a native english speaker, I can't judge that.
[snip]
>>You already know you are welcome to enjoy the best pizzas >>in Amsterdam whenever you feel like coming here :-)
>
>
> Careful -- you are bordering on flirtation there, and I'm from stoic
> Dutch roots. My people have populated some of the most conservative
> areas in the U.S. having left the Netherlands because of the immorality
> in cities such as Amsterdam. (Now they can only participate in such
> activities when making a pilgrimage back to the motherland.)
The invitations stands. Received on Sat Sep 03 2005 - 11:23:48 CEST