jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Hmm, there seems to be too much debate today. [livejournal.com profile] gerald_duck, [livejournal.com profile] robert_jones, [livejournal.com profile] filecoreinuse. And even extended argument about grammar and ice-cream with [livejournal.com profile] feanelwa and [livejournal.com profile] ewx not-respectively[1].

I guess I'm putting something off :)

In other news: I expected everyone to criticise my phases of the moon, but they didn't. I can never predict what will set people off ;)

[1] Would you distinguish "non-respectively" meaning "not necessarily in the order listed" and "not-respectively" meaning "not in the order listed?" Why didn't I just change the order? Because then I couldn't have this amusing footnote :)

Date: 2005-11-15 04:12 pm (UTC)
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
Of course, "not in the order listed" is rarely a genuinely useful concept; it's only helpful in this case because with only two items in a list ruling out one of the n! possible orders uniquely specifies the actual one.

I think we should find a use for the word "disrespectively".

Date: 2005-11-15 04:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
True. I was mainly kidding about. And it would generally be more confusing even if it were usable.

Though otoh, two element lists probably are more common than most other sorts put together. And you *might* have a reason for the order (eg. to put "I" after someone else.)

Date: 2005-11-15 04:24 pm (UTC)
mair_in_grenderich: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mair_in_grenderich
one element lists?

Date: 2005-11-15 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
What about them?

(Note I did say *most* other sorts.)

Date: 2005-11-15 04:31 pm (UTC)
mair_in_grenderich: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mair_in_grenderich
What about them?

I think we should round them all up and put them in a field.

Date: 2005-11-15 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Are one element lists synonymous with their element?

And mustn't there be one you can't put in the field, because of set theory?

Date: 2005-11-15 04:57 pm (UTC)
mair_in_grenderich: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mair_in_grenderich
Are one element lists synonymous with their element?

No! What kind of a typechecker do you have?
If it's a list of apples, it's not an apple, even if it's a list of only one apple. It's a list, not an apple. If it's a list of lists, um, well, shhhhh.

Mathmo: "You have a big field, and a little field, and the little field is in the big field - "

Farmer: "Weird".

Date: 2005-11-15 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
T-J, yo bitch still wearing the pants?
Don't say that, don't say that. Me and my ho are like a man and his dog!
In that order?
Hey, you disrespectiving me, brother? [bites thumb at him]

Date: 2005-11-15 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Was that a good splortle or a bad splortle? :)

Date: 2005-11-15 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] geekette8.livejournal.com
A messy one. :-)