Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Cimode <cimode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:36:38 -0800 (PST)
On 18 déc, 20:31, Cimode <cim...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hope this will publish adequately...
R-D= R - (R ∩ D) = R-[(RXD) - (R ∆ D)] = R U R∆D - RXD
R=[{1},{2},{4}]
D= [{1},{3}]
R-D = [{1},{2},{4}] U [{2}, {3}] - [{1, 1}{1, 2}{1, 4} {3, 1} {3, 2}
{3, 4}]
=[{1}{2}{3}{4}] - [{1, 1}{1, 2}{1, 4} {3, 1} {3, 2}{3, 4}]
=[{1}{2}{3}{4}] - [{1}, {3}]
=[{2}{4}]
To be more precise, I should have written
R-D= R - (R ∩ D) = R-[(RXD) - (R ∆ D)] = R U R∆D - DXR --> Does make
a difference when headers are brought into the equation...
Apologies..
.
- References:
- A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Cimode
- A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Prev by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Next by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Previous by thread: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Index(es):