Re: What to call this operator?

Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <1120336537.052835.142450_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com says...
> > Why? Consider functions of multiple variables. Function f(x)=sin(x) is
> > equivalent to function f(x,y)=sin(x)*1(y), where 1(y) is constant
> > function evaluating to 1.
>
> Well, yes. What I meant to question was the sense in doing so (i.e.
> expressing a function in terms of irrelevant arguments). I would also
> question the definition of this equivalence since one function has two
> arguments and the other one. But never mind.

I see no difference. When we say R is a predicate of vaiables x,y,z, then formally the predicate can depend on x and y only, and be trivially false or true for all z. In informal interpretation, however, x,y,z is the minimal set of such arguments, so that predicate depends on all of them. Informal interpretation, however, could be just viewed as a sloppy language;-)

Anyway, the point is that in lattice terms we don't even have to refer to predicate arguments explicitly anymore. Predicate arguments are defined by the predicate position in Hasse diagram. Received on Sun Jul 03 2005 - 19:49:14 CEST