On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:54:47 +0100, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote in <news:ootgk.39471$7B3.17188@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
alt.algebra.help:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1e64t0z9eylxt$.1c1jufunswypm.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:14:57 +0100, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote in <news:AFmgk.1252$%e.348@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
>> alt.algebra.help:
>> [...]
>>> You objected to my incor****ation of a computation. So I
>>> take it the objection was as to its incor****ation
>>> specifically in my definition of B.
>> Yes.
>>> Also, in *all* instances of B, B is dependent on (y+1)/2.
>> Then perhaps it would be better to define B(x, p, q) to be
>> {b in N : p | (x + 1)/2 + b or q | (x + 1)/2 - b}, and
>> restrict the domain to triples (x, p, q) such that x is odd,
>> and p and q are primes.
> What, then, is the best way to convey that all integers in
> B are in [1,(y+1/2)]?
That's a new condition that wasn't present in your original
definition. If that's what you want, then I'd return to a
slightly modified version of the previous definition:
B(x, p, q) = {b in [1, x] : p | x + b or q | x - b}.
|
