Talk:Choice sequence: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
ILikeThings (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Rating article for WikiProject Mathematics. Quality: Start / Priority: Low / Field: foundations (script assisted) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{maths rating|class=Start|priority=Low|field=foundations}} |
|||
I'll flesh this article out soon, I swears it. [[User:ILikeThings|ILikeThings]] ([[User talk:ILikeThings|talk]]) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
I'll flesh this article out soon, I swears it. [[User:ILikeThings|ILikeThings]] ([[User talk:ILikeThings|talk]]) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:07, 25 February 2010
Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
I'll flesh this article out soon, I swears it. ILikeThings (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Let \alpha\in n denote the relation "the sequence α begins with the initial sequence n""
Is this notation really correct? \in is used in two different ways in the same formula.
Twanvl (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's totally silly notation, I know. This is what I've seen in the literature, though. And I think it's used consistently throughout the article (as far as I can tell, the axiom of open data is the only place where the \in predicate is used twice, and it means the same thing in both cases). ILikeThings (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)