Content deleted Content added
Geometry guy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 30:
::I must be hallucinating! You are right '''F'''<sup>''X''</sup> does not seem to appear anywhere. I guess what disconcerted me was that I was expecting to find a discussion of '''F'''<sup>n</sup> and '''F'''<sup>'''N'''</sup> as special cases of '''F'''<sup>''X''</sup>, instead of which, I saw '''F'''<sup>n</sup> and '''F'''<sup>∞</sup> as special cases of the direct sum over ''X'' (what do you think of a notation like <math>\mathbf F^{\oplus X}</math> for this?). Anyway, there is nothing wrong with that approach - certainly I'm happy with the notation '''F'''<sup>∞</sup> - but I still think it would be nice to mention '''F'''<sup>''X''</sup> explicitly and give some subexamples. Do you agree? [[User:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]] 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:You're probably not the only one to hallucinate here. We should definitely clear things up and mention the notation '''F'''<sup>''X''</sup> explicitly. The only notations I've seen used for generalized coordinate space are <math>\bigoplus_X \mathbf F</math> or ('''F'''<sup>''X''</sup>)<sub>0</sub>. I'd be happy with either, although the first is more transparent. I'm okay with <math>\mathbf F^{\oplus X}</math> too, but I don't ever recall seeing it before. We should stick with standard notation (if it exists). -- [[User:Fropuff|Fropuff]] 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||