[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
operator embellishment

To: w3cmatherb@w3.org

Subject: operator embellishment

From: Ron Whitney <RFW@MATH.AMS.ORG>

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:41:05 0400 (EDT)

From w3cmatherbrequest@www10.w3.org Wed Jul 10 07: 41:19 1996

Mailsystemversion: <MultiNetMM(369)+TOPSLIB(158)+PMDF(5.0)@MATH.AMS.ORG>

Messageid: <836998865.54363.RFW@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Bruce writes:
> However, it might be necessary for one of the arguments to an embellisher
> (the operator or the e.g. subscript) to itself be, or contain,
> an embellished operator. This may be rarely desired, but it is allowed
> in our proposal, and could be expressed, for example, by
>
> a {+_2}_3 b
> for
> a + b
> 2
> 3
> or by
>
> a +_{b +_2 c} d
> for
> a + d
> b + c
> 2
>
> [which are admittedly extremely contrived examples].
Following is perhaps a more "natural" example, insofar as it
occurs in our literature and is in the first journal issue I
pulled from the shelves. I'll use TeX coding:
Now the functor which sends an $R\otimes_S S_n$module $M$ to
$R_{m,n}\otimes_{R\otimes_S S_n}M$ is the composition of ...
(So Bruce's example isn't "extremely contrived" at all  it has the
same form as this "real" example.)
Ron