Michael Kohlhase wrote: > Sorry for my late entry into this discussion and keeping you waiting. > Heh and sorry for my late entry... I've been part of a previous discussion on this subject, but didn't feel I had anything new to add until now.
... > What needs to be done is to formulate a CD and propose it to the OM > Society for inclusion. Here is what I would do: Propose a CD (relation5 > maybe) and add a single CDDefinition in it. Crucially, we should have a > FMP that explains it: Let me say this in mockOM (where @ stands for OMA) > > @(M,a_0,R_1,a_1,R_2\ldots,R_n,a_n) = @(and,@(R_1,a_0,a_1), > @(M,a_1,R_2\ldots,R_n,a_n)) > This sounds good, but I would suggest to consider also adding a convenience method in the same CD for the case where R_1=R_2=...=R_n=R . Then this could be something like @(M,R,a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n) = @(and,@(R,a_0,a_1),@(M,R,a_1,\ldots,a_n)) Would this be a good idea ? Regards, Jan Willem Knopper
pgppk5JkkKKTL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
