From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:41:34 -0400

Message-ID: <3F0EDAAE.8010400@stratumtek.com>

To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:41:34 -0400

Message-ID: <3F0EDAAE.8010400@stratumtek.com>

To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Indeed, I made a mistake in the lambda example in this message. Thanks for catching it. I (tried to use) used the functional form deliberately to point out that there are reasonable interpretations without bvars. Stan. > OK -- but I'm not sure I understand your lambda example above. > Shouldn't that be > > <declare> > <ci>IDENT</ci> > <lambda> > <domainofapplication><ci type="set">C</ci></domainofapplication> > <ident/> > </lambda> > </declare> > > (aren't qualifiers supposed to precede arguments? The generalized > quantifier here is the lambda, which means there is no operator in a > lambda.) Also, I believe I was thinking more along the lines of > phrasing this particular example as follows (with an explicit bvar), > although that doesn't really matter much: > > <declare> > <ci>IDENT</ci> > <lambda> > <bvar> <ci>x</ci> </bvar> > <domainofapplication><ci type="set">C</ci></domainofapplication> > <apply><ident/> <ci>x</ci></apply> > </lambda> > </declare> > >Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 11:39:28 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:34 UTC
*