Re: Limits
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For instance if we have relation:
R := {w, x, y}
where the tuples are:
w := (a:1, b:1)
x := (a:2, b:2)
y := (a:3, b:2)
then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R:
{(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)}
but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering:
{(w, x), (w,y)}
OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some
sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order?
.
Relevant Pages
- Re: An uncountable countable set
... Anyway, your claim was clearly wrong, since the subset relation ... provides a valid partial ordering on sets. ... If that's what a partial ordering vs. a total ordering is, Bigulosity is ...
(sci.math) - Re: Dilworths Lemma
... chain of length m+1 ir an antichain of size n+1. ... However, the partial order I ... my partial ordering would somehow have to create ... chains or antichains that show divisibility by 3. ...
(sci.math) - Re: Why does Cantor a target for cranks?
... merely a partial ordering? ... I believe we can have a total ordering on all sets which are parametrically measured and ordered on a given variable, such as a natural count, or natural string length. ... intersections, the same, or is one quantity more than the other? ... Explain your reason for whatever answer you come up with. ...
(sci.math) - Re: An uncountable countable set
... I thought cardinality produced a valid *total* ordering on sets. ... Anyway, your claim was clearly wrong, since the subset relation ... provides a valid partial ordering on sets. ... If that's what a partial ordering vs. a total ordering is, Bigulosity is a partial ordering on sets, not total ordering. ...
(sci.math) - Re: Why does Cantor a target for cranks?
... merely a partial ordering? ... total ordering, I think Cantor's theory is the only option. ... sticking with the SUBSET relation which already is well researched? ... Because there is something in between a universal solution for all sets ...
(sci.math) |
|
