W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > July 2003

Re: errata and comments, chapters 2 and 4

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

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:55 GMT