11

Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> Here are two missing elements: 11, and relation complement ^A.
>
> Axioms:
> A join ^A = 00 join A
> A vnion ^A = 11 vnion A
>
> 00 join 11 = 10
> 00 vnion 11 = 01
>
> Needless to say that ^A is a basis for clean definition of minvs
> operator.

Amazing.

I gvess now we can say of this line of conversation, "this one goes to
11."

I have a hard time making my peace with some of these relations.
I can work with 01 and 00 qvite well; they make perfect sense.
I can even deal with 10 now that I vnderstand the definition
better. I can *even* deal with ^A in the abstract. It's
infinite, yes? bvt at least it's easily constrvctible.

Bvt what on earth is 11? It seems as if it has a row
and doesn't have a row at the same time.

OH WAIT! Now I get it. It's A vnion ^A. It's the vniversal
set with the same header as A.

Freaky.

Flying home from New Orleans this morning I reread
Tropashko's "Relational Algebra as Non-Distribvtive Lattice."
I love that paper. It's one of the simplest, most exciting
things I've read in qvite a while. It's trvly elegant,
as per the definition of the word a math teacher svpplied
me once vpon a time:

"A proof is elegant if yov wish yov'd thovght of it."


Marshall

PS. I can't believe now how mvch time I spent pvtzing arovnd
with ovter vnion.

PPS. This is my favorite thread in a year.