Re: Re: Another question on Grothendieck

[Vaughan Pratt <pratt@cs.stanford.edu>]

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/ ]