"Jack" <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:LV0hk.20015$WX2.9336@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:ldt3l7najjfj.7f3iq4q1vwp6$.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"?
Actually, that won't get me what I want. I want to be able to refer to the
sum of the cardinalities of all possible sets B(x,p,q).
Cheers.
|
