[Latingp] Consistency in analysis

Bill Jouris bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
Thu Oct 24 23:32:16 UTC 2019

If I'm understanding this correctly, what I should do in the analysis sheets I am developing is to assure that, if we have 
Set 1 = {A, B}

Set 2 = {A, C}
Then we also have Set 3 = {B, C}

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
925-855-9512 (direct) 

    On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 10:29:36 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp at icann.org> wrote:  
  <!--#yiv6098125630 _filtered #yiv6098125630 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv6098125630 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6098125630 {font-family:DengXian;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv6098125630 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6098125630 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv6098125630 #yiv6098125630 p.yiv6098125630MsoNormal, #yiv6098125630 li.yiv6098125630MsoNormal, #yiv6098125630 div.yiv6098125630MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv6098125630 a:link, #yiv6098125630 span.yiv6098125630MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6098125630 a:visited, #yiv6098125630 span.yiv6098125630MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6098125630 span.yiv6098125630EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6098125630 .yiv6098125630MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv6098125630 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6098125630 div.yiv6098125630WordSection1 {}-->
All, let me try to explain the problem of excluding certain code points from different sets when doing the analysis.
Let’s assume two scenarios for the hypothetical analysis:
Scenario 1:
Set 1 = {A, B}
Set 2 = {A, C}
For Set 1, it was concluded A is a variant of B.
In Set 2, it was concluded A is not a variant of C.
Then, the only resulting variant set is Aà B (symmetry implied)
Scenario 2:
                Set 1 = {A, B}
                Set 3 = {A, B, C}
                For Set 1, A is deemed variant of B
                In Set 3, A is deemed variant of B, B deemed a variant of C, but A not a variant of C.
                The resulting variant sets are Aà B, Bà C; and due to transitivity AàC is also a variant pair.
My point was that by excluding a code point from the analysis can result in different result as to the variant sets identified.
Hope this helps clarify.
Latingp mailing list
Latingp at icann.org

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20191024/71c81b4a/attachment.html>

More information about the Latingp mailing list