Paul,
>> It's
>> writing out the definition of t: N ---> N is arbitrary, and my not
>> knowing
>> whether the change in definition of t(n) will mean that anything needs
to
>> be
>> said as regards c(n), which after the second definition is laid down
>> becomes
>> c(n,J).
>
> You can't do that; c and c(-,J) are two different things. What you
> _can_ do is call your "count the divisors" function t_J and then
> _define_ c(n, J) = c_(t_j)(n). In fact that wouldn't be a bad idea
> since subscripted subscripts are to be avoided if possible.
So after my first definition, in which t: N--->N is arbitrary, I write
'let
c_t(n) = (1/2)*t(n)*(t(n) - 1)?
Then I have my 'count the divisors' phase and I write 'let t_J(n) be the
number of primes in J that divide n. And then I define c(n,J) as
(1/2)*t_J(n)*(t_J(n) - 1)?
I suppose that means I have to redefine, similarly, all my terms that
depend
upon t....?
With thanks.
|
