[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: <mark>*Subject*: Tables*From*: Eric Dean Tribble <tribble>*Date*: Sun, 22 Oct 89 00:32:32 PDT*Cc*: <heh>, <xtech>*In-reply-to*: <MarkS.Miller'smessageofSat>,22 PDT <8910212309.AA02878@xanadu>

Charming is our (weak) definition of contiguous - ask MarkM or Dean for details, but for all our early purposes, it works just fine. Charming is actually stronger than contiguous, in that all charming sets are contiguous, but not all contiguous sets are charming. Neither is quite right. First, I'm not sure that contiguous is defined for partial orders. Chew on this: A / \ B C Such that A>B and A>C. Note that {A,B,C} is charming, but so is {B,C}. It gets even stranger when you notice that B and C would be a charming pair even if they both had branches. This is important when considering enclosures in a partial order, but it's a little wierd for trees. ... Interesting observations about multi-dimensional stuff. The intuition is that charming regions of basicSpaces can fully described by describing their upper and lower bounds (yes, plural. Not unless you make that an 'iff' in your discussion of multi-dimensional spaces. Note that upper and lower bounds aren't useful for describing circles or spheres. Well actually, if we used polar coordinates...hmmm. Mr Hill? Let me just point out that we should avoid any properties that eliminate various types of enfilades. Q: What is the difference between Xanadu and pantyhose? A: In Xanadu, runs are charming. There's a certain class of run in pantyhose that's quite charming.... dean

**Follow-Ups**:**Tables***From:*Mark S . Miller

**References**:**Tables***From:*Mark S . Miller

- Prev by Date:
**Circular Multi-Orgls & Logic Programming** - Next by Date:
**First Class Links Make Second Strike** - Previous by thread:
**Tables** - Next by thread:
**Tables** - Index(es):