On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:21:48 -0400, Sperry
<plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<news:plsperry-9B3C5F.00214816072008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
alt.algebra.help:
> 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?
Me.
> In Maple it is sum(t(n), n=x..y); in LaTeX it is \sum_{n\in[x,y]}t(n).
What the LaTeX code actually produces is perfectly
legitimate, standard notation, but I don't consider Maple
code mathematical notation any more than I consider C code
mathematical notation.
[...]
Brian
|
