> Do you mean _factors_ of a?
No, I meant *multiples* of a(m). Or a(J) when I am using the subset of m,
J.
The product of all primes in J is a column in which there are J entries.
Same with the column indexed by twice the product, etc. The fact that
these
columns are found exclusively at intervals of a(m)+1 is the reason I want
one such at the column indexed by zero.
Having the first column be all 1's is an
> exception to the rule defining the other entries of M_1 unless you
> cheat a little as I did above.
Didn't understand it, I must say....
> [...]
>
>> The
>> problem is, you say matrices but I am tryuing to impress upon you that
I
>> am
>> constructing arrays, and the property determining the entry is not
>> necessarily one of divisibility.
>
> What do you mean by "array"? How does a matrix differ from an array?
For my array, I did not need any indexing for the vertical axis. The array
might as well be a histogram for the purposes I have in mind.
> For a matrix, "column sums" would be understood. You "arrays"
> apparently have columns but I am frankly mystified by what you have in
> mind.
How about the mathematical notation? Do I define a set for entries into
the
array?
>
> A nice numerical example illustrating M_1 and your "black/white array"
> would be very welcome at this point.
I trust that my histogram analogy achieves this. I do not wish to
prescribe
any criterion that determines the column sums over the array.
With thanks.
|
