Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: "Disjoint" relation

To: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Michel Hack" <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "Disjoint" relation
From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:58:05 -0500
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201010041354.o94DsAG2016868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Organization: Sunfish Studio, LLC
References: <201010041354.o94DsAG2016868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx

Michel Hack wrote:

I agree with Arnold that the "Disjoint" relation deserves to be a
primitive.  Interestingly, Motion 21 also requires synthesizing it
out of two of the "overlapping" states.


Arnolds "observation" that
   disjoint(A,B) = ( A \prec B ) or ( B \prec A )

requires twice as much computational effort than a "primitive" disjointoperation is pure misinformation.


Nate

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Disjoint" relation
  - From: Arnold Neumaier

References:
- "Disjoint" relation
  - From: Michel Hack

Prev by Date: Re: Disjoint, subset, & interior, or more...???
Next by Date: "Disjoint" relation
Previous by thread: "Disjoint" relation
Next by thread: Re: "Disjoint" relation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread