Anonymous user
Talk:Symmetric difference: Difference between revisions
→REXX Version 2: add verbage concering duplicate values from a result. -- ~~~~
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) |
(→REXX Version 2: add verbage concering duplicate values from a result. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 91:
:: to me 'a b c' is a representation of a set (a, b, and c) and duplicate elements aren't a problem in this particular case/algorithm. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
::: oops, I see that there IS a problem if invalid sets (with duplicate elements) are specified. Some other points are moot, however, --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
:::: ''No duplicate values would ever exist in any result from a set based solution.'' Paddy wrote that (above). To me, the key word is '''result''' from a set-based solution. Note that Wiki uses the word ''replicated value'' instead of ''duplicated value''. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Note that every program solution (example) that actually ''uses'' duplicates in a list or SET handles duplications correctly. Stating that a list IS a SET doesn't make it so. 'A B C' is a list of three values (delimited by blanks, and of course, the values in this case can't contain blanks). ["A", "B", "C"] is a better representation of that set. The list 'A B C B' is also represented by the set ["A", "B", "C"] (in any order). Also, if you could specify which points you think are moot, it would help minimize any confusion about which points are being discussed (or being dismissed as moot). I'm trying to express my opinions about lists versus SETs and the handling of duplicates in the list(s). How a list is expressed and (or) translated/transliterated to a representative SET is germane to this discussion. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||