My apologies to Eduardo. I misread his original post as a complaint about AG, when what he meant was that there was no ambiguity given that the other interpretations made little or no sense. Since complaining about AG makes little sense on a list AG (presumably) doesn't read, when there was another interpretation that would have made more sense had I noticed it, I'm guilty of the very thing Eduardo was complaining about. Vaughan On 9/4/2010 12:38 PM, Eduardo J. Dubuc wrote:

Yes Vaughan, I agree with your point "up to a point", and this is an interesting topic to discuss (see Point 2) below).

But I was raising another point, much more simple.

Point 1) It was about the notation "U_{i_0..i_p}". If you understand the mathematics, then whether this stands for the intersection, the union, or any other known construction with the U_i_j, it should be clear which one is.

So it seemed to me ridiculous that people in the list, all mathematicians, start discussing and speculating about possible meanings of "U_{i_0..i_p}".

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]