The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Order, Filters and Reloids
Replies: 11   Last Post: Sep 1, 2013 10:54 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Victor Porton

Posts: 621
Registered: 8/1/05
Re: Order, Filters and Reloids
Posted: Aug 29, 2013 6:08 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

William Elliot wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Victor Porton wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote:

>> >> > The composition of reloids is associative.
>> >> Correct. Theorem 7.13 in my book:
>> >>

>> >
>> > How many theorems of chapter 7 are about reloids only?
>> > Other than what is mentioned here, what are some of them?

>> Have you noticed that chapter 7 is titled "Reloids"? All theorems in this
>> chapter are about reloids.

> I'm sill hassling with the weirdly written section "Funcoids and Reloids".
> files are a pain in the butt, hard to work with. I've yet to get anything
> out of it except noticing weird unneeded notations and definitions that
> make it all the more complicated.
> For example, what's (F,X,Y)^-1? Wouldn't it simply be (F^-1,Y,X)?
> Your definition of (F,X,Y)^-1 was unduly confusing and muddled.

(F,X,Y)^-1 is useful when we assign f=(F,X,Y). This way we have a definition
for the morphism f^-1.

> In addition, there's no efficient way to write and
> comment about interesting parts.
> If F,G in Ft(X), H in Ft(Y), it's straight forward to prove
> F/\G xx H = FxxH /\ GxxH.

Well, if you do NOT use reverse order which I recommend.

> Without referring to your pdf file, how do you prove:
> if, for all j, Fj in Ft(X), G in Ft(y), then
> (/\_j Fj) xx G = /\_j (Fj xx G)?

It becomes a trivial set-theoretic equation if we replace /\ -> \/

(\/_j Fj) xx G = \/_j (Fj xx G)?

It seems for me that you have confused a poset with the dual poset. However
I am not sure what you do mean.

> The same method used for the finite case, can't be reworked for the
> infinite
> case. BTW, the proposition is false if the index set for j is empty.

Victor Porton -

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.