search

ProjetPP / Documentation

Documentation and protocol specification of the Projet Pensées Profondes
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
7 stars 1 forks source link

No doublons in lists #36

Closed marc-chevalier closed 9 years ago

marc-chevalier commented 9 years ago

Doublons are not usefull and can cause a combinatorial explosion in some pathologic cases, at least, that increase the number of request and computation time. So the operation 'union' is the union of set theory and not the list concatenation. More generally, operations on lists don't preserve order.

Ezibenroc commented 9 years ago

Then why don't we call these "sets" and not "lists"?

progval commented 9 years ago

s/doublon/duplicate/

Tpt commented 9 years ago

@Ezibenroc Because we have an order that is not contained in the notion of "set".

marc-chevalier commented 9 years ago

Because we can define an order on it.

Marc CHEVALIER

Le 27/11/2014 12:08, Tom Cornebize a écrit :

Then why don't we call these "sets" and not "lists"?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjetPP/Documentation/pull/36#issuecomment-64776852.

Ezibenroc commented 9 years ago

More generally, operations on lists don't preserve order.

Because we can define an order on it.

?

marc-chevalier commented 9 years ago

We can define an order on each list (and more than one). But there is no right way to define an order on the union of the ordered lists in the general case.

Marc CHEVALIER

Le 27/11/2014 12:11, Tom Cornebize a écrit :

More generally, operations on lists don't preserve order.

Because we can define an order on it.

?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjetPP/Documentation/pull/36#issuecomment-64777154.