Le 12-févr.-09 à 10:27, Professor James Davenport a écrit :
On Thu, February 12, 2009 9:21 am, Paul Libbrecht wrote:But what precisely would the seminatics be to avoid Russell's paradox. I think you need to start with a ground set, AS IN map. Maybe the name needsI think that the fact that Robert and myself didn't find it proves that a symbol having the semantic of set_of_expression_results_suchthat is wished.improvement, but I am unclear whetehr you are suggesting different semantics, and if so, which.
I tried to write the description and reached exactly that of map!The most readable version would be a symbol as above to be a binder with a domain of definition. I don't see this possible in the current spec so map is the only choice. Am I wrong?
Fair comment. Indeed, if the DefMP proposal ever gets formalised along the line of <FMP type="defining">, we could even consider <FMP type="alias">Since we have a "defining FMP" anyone can do so anytime... But consider here my suggestion (once we find a right name!) for inclusion into set1.as a simpled form for this case.
This bumps into the desire for a "generalisation" operator as well. paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
