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}

Correct? 

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)


On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 10:29:36 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote:


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 A à 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 A à 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.

 

Dennis

 

_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp

_______________________________________________
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.