In article <qpb66xeblgng$.nqbeq2ua0wwg.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:27:36 -0400, Paul Sperry
> <plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> <news:150720082227360568%plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
> alt.algebra.help:
>
> > In article <1p8cwg9spj9vh.1bekopd1ypbqa.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Brian M.
Scott
> > <b.scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:45:58 -0400, Paul Sperry
> >> <plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> >> <news:150720081745589130%plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
> >> alt.algebra.help:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> "Over" is more informal. "The sum of t(n) over [x,y]" ,
> >>> "the sum of t(n) for all n in [x,y]" and "sum(t(n) : n is
> >>> in [x,y])"
>
> >> I consider this last notationally incorrect: it should be
> >> sum{t(n) : n in [x, y]}.
>
> > It depends on how you feel about verbs I guess.
>
> I wasn't objecting to 'is', since I assume that your 'is in'
> and my 'in' both represent the member****p symbol; I was
> objecting to your use of parentheses instead of curly
> braces. That's the sum over a set.
Sez who?
In Maple it is sum(t(n), n=x..y); in LaTeX it is \sum_{n\in[x,y]}t(n).
Anyway, on my laptop it is difficult to distinguish between round and
curley brackets.
> [...]
>
> Brian
--
Paul Sperry
Columbia, SC (USA)
|
