tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post651673498477927413..comments2023-05-17T07:01:49.378-04:00Comments on Elegant Coding: Lattice Theory for Programmers and Non Computer Scientistselegantcodinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12373582469986942814noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-28277249747286700642017-02-20T08:01:30.957-05:002017-02-20T08:01:30.957-05:00From title of the sight, I was expecting to see so...From title of the sight, I was expecting to see some code... Cab you give some code (may be trivial one) I recently came across a problem on our project and suddenly is relevance to lattice theory striked in my mind. But needed some push to think code for lattice theory. Googling for "lattice theory for programmers" gave your link but finding no code.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03761723770099086312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-3349095916272156622015-08-11T03:40:26.246-04:002015-08-11T03:40:26.246-04:00Looking forward to part 2!Looking forward to part 2!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02394621691047882160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-19018718985686504162014-07-25T16:11:19.093-04:002014-07-25T16:11:19.093-04:00Perhaps that is unclear, but the first example jus...Perhaps that is unclear, but the first example just shows the idea of a relation. It is not a transitive relation.<br /> elegantcodinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12373582469986942814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-4313405417786096092012-09-24T20:00:59.030-04:002012-09-24T20:00:59.030-04:00Havvy, Mazzwar, Matt,
Good catches and thanks for...Havvy, Mazzwar, Matt,<br /><br />Good catches and thanks for the feedback. I made the fixes. As soon as I open my account with the Bank of San Serriffe, I’ll send you all checks. <br />elegantcodinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12373582469986942814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-14918817109024320502012-09-24T14:02:56.570-04:002012-09-24T14:02:56.570-04:00Mistake?
"In the example above (b,c) exists,...Mistake?<br /><br />"In the example above (b,c) exists, (b,c) ∈ R. Also note that opposite relation of (b,c), (c,b) is not in R, (b,c) ∉ R."<br /><br />I believe that should be "In the example above (b,c) exists, (b,c) ∈ R. Also note that opposite relation of (b,c), (c,b) is not in R, (c,b) ∉ R."Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315972855078415282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-77520446964002855952012-09-24T01:32:09.303-04:002012-09-24T01:32:09.303-04:00Great post. I think there is a small mistake in th...Great post. I think there is a small mistake in the Modular law:<br />x ≤ y implies x ∨ (y ∧ x) = (x ∧ y) ∨ z<br />should be <br />x ≤ y implies x ∨ (y ∧ z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ z<br />Mazzwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09454153316788064057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6918427997759942244.post-56204756773825917372012-09-23T15:39:10.281-04:002012-09-23T15:39:10.281-04:00Transitive∀ x,y,z ∈ S if (x,y) ∈ R and (y,z) ∈ R ...Transitive∀ x,y,z ∈ S if (x,y) ∈ R and (y,z) ∈ R then (y,z) ∈ R<br /><br />That last (y, z) should be (x, z).Havvyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01098432761336588467noreply@blogger.com