Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:25:33 GMT
Message-ID: <xSHci.30010$NV3.13171_at_pd7urf2no>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 15 jun, 18:26, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
>>Jan Hidders wrote:
>...
>>>R1 = R{B} GROUP {B} AS gB = { (gB:{ (B:2} }), (gB:{ (B:3) }) }
>>>...
>>
>>I take it that R1 here has two tuples?
>
>
> Yes, the tuples (gB:{ (B:2) }) and (gB:{ (B:3) }). I'm using the usual
> set enumeration notation, so { t_1, t_2 } denotes a set with two
> elements, t_1 and t_2.
Well, thank you again. It seems I've been reading D&D's definition in different ways at different times for some years, sometimes falling into an intuition trap that I should recognize better by now, and just lucked out with the examples I was using to test my elaborate answer to Marshall S's question and totally ignored the most elementary example that you gave. It is comforting to see that your answer agrees with my just-now more careful reading of that.
(In order for this post to be not yet another completely useless one, I'll mention again the D&D link again for anybody who isn't aware of it:
http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~hugh/TTM/APPXA.pdf
Besides obviously reflecting a lot of thought, it seems fairly self-contained to me and I hope to see something comparable for the lattice algebra some time even though I don't feel very confident that I have much grasp yet of that approach. When I say 'comparable' I don't mean 'better theoretically', I mean something that is more approachable for those of us who aren't as well versed in the necessary background as the authors.)
p Received on Sat Jun 16 2007 - 04:25:33 CEST