19
edits
Talk:Partition representations: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Partition representations (view source)
Revision as of 23:32, 27 January 2020
, 23:32, 27 January 2020no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Couldn't a division be empty without being zero-length? [[User:Adám Brudzewsky|Adám Brudzewsky]] ([[User talk:Adám Brudzewsky|talk]]) | Couldn't a division be empty without being zero-length? [[User:Adám Brudzewsky|Adám Brudzewsky]] ([[User talk:Adám Brudzewsky|talk]]) | ||
Certainly it could if by "empty" you mean my second case above ''"match their own prototype"''. Inserted divisions would necessarily be of zero length. A non-zero-length division matching its prototype must therefore contain some of the original data. And if my assertion of necessity is questionable then no divisions can be ignored as no distinction can be made between data and insertions. | |||
But to return to the main point. The original sentence is either a tautology or ambiguous. The word "prototype" does not belong there. [[User:Phil Last|Phil Last]] ([[User talk:Phil Last|talk]]) 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC) | |||