Re: Equivalence only in one direction

["Adam M. Costello" <idn-reg-policy.amc+0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Let's call these three labels X, Y, and V, where V is the common
> > variant of X and Y, and X and Y are not variants of each other.
> 
> Which of the following tables do you mean?
> 
>    X|V
>    Y|V
>    V|X;Y
> 
> or
> 
>    X|V
>    Y|V
>    V
> 
> ?

Neither, for two reasons: (1) I haven't started thinking in terms of
tables, I'm still thinking in terms of relations, and (2) X, Y, and Z
are entire labels, so they are unlikely to appear in the table (the
table contains single characters and perhaps short strings).

I think you're asking whether I had a symmetric variant relation in
mind, or an asymmetric one.  I probably had a symmetric relation in
mind.  The important point was that it was intransitive--that's what
made the scenarios interesting (to me).

I think it would make sense to avoid fixating on a particular table
format while we're still discussing what kind of relation it ought to
generate.

AMC