"Paul Sperry" <plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:160720082107587503%plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <Mksfk.20$dl5.11@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> One chief reason why it looks right that, in my notation, I retain
>> the
>> full x,y in eg. N(x,y,t_j) instead of using only x is that on occasions
I
>> replace x and y with specific prescribed values.
>
> I presume x and y come from [x, y]. Since you now say y - x is
> variable, y is not determined by x, so it appears you _must_ include y.
But if I always begin every proof of every proposition that I lay down,
with
'given x,y', then surely it's as good as saying something like 'given
x=1',
in which case y is the only variable necessary to reference. I can see
your
point, though, if I am not insisting on a *specific* [x,y] throughout.
> I'm guessing N(x,y,t) is some sort of function - it is probably a
> surrogate for N([x,y],t). In any case, if it is a function, you are
> obliged to give its domain and codomain; i.e. N : ? -> ??.
It's sum{t(n), n : n in [x,y]}.
Incidentally, I am thinking of replacing some of my variables with sets,
and
referencing their cardinality to replace my original reference to the
variable. I can see one sole advantage in that it does away with the need
to
define an extra set quite a bit later on in my paper, albeit one that I
thought looked a congenial creation, it being a set A that was placed in
contradistinction to a set B. Would you say it's advisable to use avoid
defining sets, in favour of defining variables, where possible?
With thanks.
|
