Talk:Q600590
Autodescription — n-tuple (Q600590)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “n-tuple” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
n-tuple⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
w:Recursive definition: An n-tuple ("n-tuple") is defined inductively using the construction of an ordered pair --Fractaler (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relationship to recursive definition (Q2466486)[edit]
@Ogoorcs: An inductive definition where something is used doesn't imply that a subclass relationship exists. "X is subclass of Y" means that "every X is also an Y". If you can show an X that isn't an Y that means that X isn't a subclass of Y. (1, 2, 3) is a tuple but it's no ordered pair and as a result a tuple isn't a subclass of ordered pair. This relationship happens to hold for "tuple" and "sequence". If you want to argue that a tuple is made of a lot of ordered pairs then you could use has part(s) (P527) or has part(s) of the class (P2670). We can even talk about whether we need a new property to talk about how something can be defined with recursion. ChristianKl (✉) 22:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is the correct way to insert into Wikidata the information at this paragraph? --Ogoorcs (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is recursion a process (Q3249551) or result (Q2995644)? --Fractaler (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- The question of the nature of recursion should be discussed on the relevant item and there might be the need for multiple items called recursion if there are different concetions. ChristianKl (✉) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ogoorcs, ChristianKl: Ogoorcs may claim that (1,2,3) is really ((1,2),3) or (1,(2,3)) (even though those are very different things from a computational standpoint) and therefore is an ordered pair after all. However, note that () and (1) are also tuples, but they cannot be constructed as ordered pairs. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I now removed the claim given the lack of engagement. ChristianKl (✉) 14:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not the source of the statement. I found this on a book and wanted to include the information. The book restrain the definition to n>2. --Ogoorcs (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)