[PPL-devel] definitions.dox

[Enea Zaffanella]

Pat,

you are right, the notation is currently not consistent.
For vectors, usual notations are either bold-face letters
or the use of an overline (something like the LaTeX command \vec).
I would prefer the first one ... but this is just my taste.
We are currently investigating whether or not it is possible
to have a convenient use of macros, to help confining all these
notation changes in a single place (here the problem is that
this mechanism should work independently of the form of the
final output and the way it is obtained ... html, pdf, doxygen ...)

ciao,
Enea.

P M Hill wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There are a few small things I would like to check with you before
> changing the files.
> 
> I notice a rather mixed notation for vectors.
> In most of the definitions x, x_1,...
> are elements of \mathbb{R}^n or similar.
> However,
> 
> 1) in the definition of the combinations, we use p_1,...,p_k
> I think we should use x_1,...,x_k as in the rest of the user
> documentation.
> 
> 2) in the definition of scalar product, x_1,...,x_n are the
> components of the vector x and, therefore elements of \mathhbb{R}.
> This is inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
> 
> I am trying to choose another letter for x_1,...,x_n and y_1,...,y_n for
> this definition. Note that b and c are already used for vectors.
> One possibility is to use \lambda_1,...,\lambda_n and \mu_1,...,\mu_n
> since \lambda is already used in the definition of the different
> combinations as elements of \mathbb{R} - and also in Minkowski's theorem.
> 
> ciao,
>   Pat
> 
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPL-devel mailing list
> PPL-devel at cs.unipr.it
> http://www.cs.unipr.it/mailman/listinfo/ppl-devel