Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #96844
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <harvesting@makes.email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: True == 1 weirdness |
| Date | 2015-09-19 09:23 +0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lf5fv2bnczo.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> (permalink) |
| References | <mailman.30.1442580482.16376.python-list@python.org> <55fc0e4d$0$1645$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <1442583652.2433512.387297097.0C910B45@webmail.messagingengine.com> <mthktk$q5p$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.2.1442603566.21674.python-list@python.org> |
Random832 writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 14:24, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> If a, b, c are members of a totally ordered set, so that < is
>> transitive, this is equivalent to max(a,c) < b. But the latter makes
>> an irrelevant comparison between a and c.
>
> But *who would write that?* It's not a natural form of notation. I'm
> not saying it doesn't mean anything in Python. Obviously everything
> that is allowed means something. I'm saying no-one would write that in
> an ordinary context of human communication and expect to be
> understood.
It might be natural when discussing partial orders, where (a < b > c) is
compatible with there not being any max(a, c) or even sup(a, c) at all.
Here's a class of strings ordered by inclusion as substrings. The
comparison (u in w != u) in __lt__ came naturally when I wrote this.
class S(object):
def __init__(self, s):
self.s = s
def __lt__(self, other):
return self.s in other.s != self.s
def __eq__(self, other):
return self.s == other.s
def __str__(self):
return 'S({})'.format(repr(self.s))
And here's looking for two distinct elements that have a common proper
upper bound in a given set.
data = ('a', 'oo', 'r', 'foo', 'bar')
print(*( (x.s, y.s)
for x in map(S, data)
for y in map(S, data)
for m in map(S, data)
if y != x < m > y != x ),
sep = '\n')
Output:
('a', 'r')
('r', 'a')
The question is whether some such conditions might, sometimes,
somewhere, in context, look natural. I says yes.
The condition as a whole states a verbalizable relation between x, y, m:
that m is a common upper bound of distinct x, y. It's not stated whether
x < y or x > y or neither.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: True == 1 weirdness Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-18 08:47 -0400
Re: True == 1 weirdness Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-18 23:14 +1000
Re: True == 1 weirdness Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-18 09:40 -0400
Re: True == 1 weirdness Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-09-19 19:19 +1200
Re: True == 1 weirdness Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-09-18 14:24 -0400
Re: True == 1 weirdness Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:12 -0400
Re: True == 1 weirdness Jussi Piitulainen <harvesting@makes.email.invalid> - 2015-09-19 09:23 +0300
Re: True == 1 weirdness Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:13 -0600
Re: True == 1 weirdness Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:21 -0400
csiph-web