Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Subspaces & ZZ versioning

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@xxxxxx>]

On 20001227T115303+0100, Benjamin Fallenstein wrote:
> For general use in versioning etc., I would not use the closuring: for
> example, you'd want to be able to take the whole tree starting at the
> "AllViews" cell as a subspace, but it isn't a closed set in any way that
> makes sense. (Of course it's a closed set with respect to the dimensions
> "d.i-don't-exist" and "d.me-neither", but that doesn't help us. ;))

Well, just define an empty set as the set of hard dimensions.  Then there
will be no closures.

> I agree that def 2 is more natural, but there will be cases where we
> need 1, so I wouldn't totally lock that out. What about calling
> subspaces according to 2 "standard subspace?"

Or something similar.  I had the same thought.

> I've been thinking a bit about how to phrase the definitions, and I
> think I'd prefer a phrasing that stresses we either select a number of
> cells and a number of connections, or a number of cells and a number of
> dimensions, i.e.:
> 
>     Z' is a subspace of Z with respect to a set of cells C and a set of
>     connections N iff...
> 
>     Z' is a standard subspace of Z with respect to a set of cells C and
>     a set of dimensions D iff...

I've been writing some notes about this. They're very mathish and they're
in LaTeX, but I could commit them if somebody wants to see them.
And BTW, they are full of errors :-)

-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@xxxxxx % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%