[PPL-devel] definitions.dox

[P M Hill]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Enea Zaffanella wrote:

> 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 ...)

That is why I suggest a different letter for the components of the vector
x (and y), that is simple and unambiguous - the only problem is what
letters to use.
As b and d are already used for vectors, so that the obvious "a_i"
and "b_i" are no better than "x_i" and "y_i", I suggested lambda_i and
mu_i. At least these are already used for real numbers, so this is
consistent.
Other options are "u_i" and "v_i".

ciao,
  Pat

> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPL-devel mailing list
> PPL-devel at cs.unipr.it
> http://www.cs.unipr.it/mailman/listinfo/ppl-devel
>

--