logical inconsistency in Union

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg13069] logical inconsistency in Union*From*: Veit Elser <ve10 at cornell.edu>*Date*: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:45:09 -0400*Organization*: Cornell University*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

The Union function gives logically inconsistent results when used with certain SameTest rules. The problem is that the argument of Union is first sorted into Mathematica's canonical order, which may be inconsistent with the supplied SameTest. Here's an innocent example of the problem: In[1]:= (* 3 points in the plane *) a={1,1}; b={1.2,1}; c={1.1,2}; In[2]:= (* rule which says two points are the same if each coordinate differs by at most 0.5 *) approxSame[x_,y_]:=Round[x-y]=={0,0} In[3]:= approxSame[a,b] Out[3]= True In[4]:= approxSame[a,c] Out[4]= False In[5]:= Union[{a,b,c},SameTest->approxSame] Out[5]= {{1,1},{1.1,2},{1.2,1}} (* incorrect result ! *) In[7]:= Union[{a,b},SameTest->approxSame] Out[7]= {{1,1}} (* correct result *) To fix this problem we have to be allowed to modify the ordering function used by Union in order to be consistent with SameTest. An even better solution would be to be able to overide Mathematica's Order function (which returns -1,0,1). This would accomplish both: a consistent rule for sorting and a criterion to decide if two elements are the same. This problem affects other set theoretic functions as well (e.g. Complement). -Veit

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: logical inconsistency in Union***From:*Daniel Lichtblau <danl>