"Paul Sperry" <plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:110720081503413540%plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> In article <8tMdk.2$Ek.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> For completeness:
> Call an _H-Gram_ a 5-tuple H = (L, R, u, v, w) where L and R are sets
> and u, v and w are functions; u : L -> |N; v : R -> |N ;
> w : L x R -> |N.
>
>
>> I have got two definitions of t;
>
> That is forbidden.
>
That's what I had thought. But then Brian said, "Do you need to discuss
*simultaneously* a function t_J : N --> N that is defined in terms of
divisibility by members of a set J of primes *and* a completely arbitrary
function t : N --> N? If not, then of course you can call
them both 't'; whyever not?!"
Am really confused (not least by the irate tone of everyone's replies!).
The t I was employing is exactly the same t as I have been using in every
post on this NG in which I have used it, even in the construction of a
matrix that you and I carried out.
I can't say I understood anything of what you said about H-Grams.
Cheers.
|
