"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ldt3l7najjfj.7f3iq4q1vwp6$.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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}.
OK -- and could you advise me as to how I should reference B when I am
taking every member of J as a value p and also every member of J as a
value
q? In other words, the set of sets B for a given J? Perhaps I just write
out
a new definition, "let B_{0}(x,J) be the set of sets B for a given J"?
With thanks in advance.
|
