[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sorted?
From: |
Mikael Djurfeldt |
Subject: |
Re: sorted? |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Dec 2024 20:55:20 +0100 |
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 8:45 PM Mikael Djurfeldt <mikael@djurfeldt.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 8:23 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> (lambda (p1 p2) (< (car p1) (car p2)))
>>
>> Then you'd need a corresponding equal, because otherwise you
>> end up with things which are neither less nor equal nor greater,
>> i.e. the ordering isn't total, which is bad for sorting :)
>>
>
> `sort' assumes that the elements belong to a "strict total order", which
> means that the connectedness-axiom is true, which means that a = b is
> *equivalent to* not (a < b or a > b). So, we don't need equal.
>
Actually, a "total order" is sufficient for `sort', because equal is not
necessary for sorting. I should have said that if we have a "strict total
order" (as is almost always the case) is sufficient for the equivalence I
have been talking about.
- Re: sorted?, (continued)
- Re: sorted?, tomas, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, tomas, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2024/12/09
- Re[2]: sorted?, Stefan Schmiedl, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, tomas, 2024/12/09
- Re[2]: sorted?, Stefan Schmiedl, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, tomas, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?,
Mikael Djurfeldt <=
- Re: sorted?, tomas, 2024/12/09
- Re: sorted?, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2024/12/09
- RE: sorted?, Maxime Devos, 2024/12/12
- RE: sorted?, Maxime Devos, 2024/12/12
- RE: sorted?, Maxime Devos, 2024/12/12
- RE: sorted?, Maxime Devos, 2024/12/12
- RE: sorted?, Maxime Devos, 2024/12/12