Re: how to write good CS paper

On Thu, 24 May 2001, mikito Harakiri wrote:

> > 2. NOTATIONS
> > Finite Structures and Logics. All structures are assumed to be finite.
> > A relational signature 'sigma' is a set of relation symbols
> > {R_1 , ..., R_l}, with associated arities p_i > 0.

  This is a very standard notation, if one wants to talk about a bunch of relations.

> them within a set. I object! Those indexes would stick to the rest of the paper
> and every orthogonal enumeration, a need for which is discovered later in the
> game, would have to be added on top of it. If the results of the paper don't
> depend on join operations why not to use a single relation 'A' (or universal
> relation?). Now, if joining is coming somewhere into the picture, then why not

  They would index them probably so that they can make the statements they want to make in as much generality as possible. This is often very desirable.

> Next comes enumeration of attributes within a relation. Advocates of excessive
> mathematical notation, again, would write something like P_i(a_1, ..., a_k)
> (keeping index from previois part, remember?-). Now, what advantages enumerating
> columns like this are? Are we going to use induction on the number of columns,
> or leverage ariphmetic properties of the subscript indexes somehow? Wouldn't

  Advantages are plentiful. For example, if I want to make a statement that says for these variables a,b,c or whatever, there is *some* relation such that... I could say "There exists a 'j' such that a_j on the variables a,b,c.. whatever... has this certain property." THe indices allow us to pick out a relation if we choose.   You also say "keeping index from previous part, remember?" Note that this is NOT the same indexing, since the first one went from 1..l and this one goes from 1..k . This means that these two sets can be different sizes, probably independent of each other, and even possibly equalto each other if k=l. These indexes also put the emphasis that such a k and l exist, that is, that these sets are finite.   All these little peculiarities are a standard notation in which paper-readers (and even writers) have to get used to so that when something is writtenm, ambiguity is avoided, as is incoherence.   The mathematical notations are used for the sake of clarity and precision, not to complicate things.

Jim Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 01:26:01 CEST