Timeline for Ordering of tuples equivalent to mapping to R?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2013 at 8:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 28, 2013 at 10:59 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2009 at 23:49 | history | edited | Casebash | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 312 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2009 at 23:40 | comment | added | Casebash | Clarified non-strict. Sorry, I don't know how I left out the word increasing from the discussion of generation. | |
| Dec 10, 2009 at 23:36 | history | edited | Casebash | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 85 characters in body; added 79 characters in body; added 11 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2009 at 13:35 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | I agree with Qiaochu. As he says, the words "non-strict" and "generated" need clarification. | |
| Dec 7, 2009 at 5:42 | history | edited | David Eppstein |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 7, 2009 at 5:40 | answer | added | David Eppstein | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 7, 2009 at 5:22 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I'm not sure I understand your question. Is a non-strict total ordering just one in which different elements are allowed to be equivalent? What do you mean by "generated"? Do you mean that if tuple A has tuple B as a subsequence, then A is greater than B, or should "subsequence" be replaced by any of subword, left truncation, right truncation? | |
| Dec 7, 2009 at 5:14 | history | asked | Casebash | CC BY-SA 2.5 |