From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d6c7d8de9892932bdad0988da6bc3a7e@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ls, rc question
From: Richard Miller <rm@hamnavoe.com>
In-Reply-To: <018101c40d95$3ba2a6e0$c6dd7d50@SOMA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:11:52 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 394d84ce-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

I said:
> Sorry, David is correct on this point.

<boyd@insultant.net> said:
> BULLSHIT

By "this point", I meant the observation that bind(..MAFTER|MBEFORE)
doesn't produce a union in the mathematical sense, but a list.  If
someone finds a reference anywhere in the mathematical literature to a
union operator which is non-commutative, I will happily retract my claim.

<geoff@collyer.net> said:
> Mathematics is a powerful tool, but not appropriate for solving all
> problems. ...

Agreed.  ("A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer checked into
a hotel one night ... " No, you've all heard that one already.)

But when we use mathematical metaphors to explain the behaviour of
engineering artefacts, choosing a not-quite-right metaphor can
cause confusion.  As in this case.

-- Richard