I think that this is indeed a good idea. So we should probably have a CD multirel for that.
Michael On 13.05.2009 22:17 Uhr, Jan Willem Knopper wrote: > 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 > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62 Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12, School of Engineering& Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 [email protected] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase skype: m.kohlhase * on Sabbatical in Auckland (NZ) until VII/2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
