From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6119 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vaughan Pratt Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Re: Another question on Grothendieck Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:23:07 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4C819AD7.8090403@dm.uba.ar> <4C82A02D.7090703@dm.uba.ar> Reply-To: Vaughan Pratt NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283777982 12854 80.91.229.12 (6 Sep 2010 12:59:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:59:42 +0000 (UTC) To: categories list Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Mon Sep 06 14:59:41 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpy.mta.ca ([138.73.1.139]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OsbIS-0003dj-L3 for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:59:40 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:38630) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OsbG4-00046C-96; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:57:12 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OsbG0-0001WN-TR for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:57:09 -0300 In-Reply-To: <4C82A02D.7090703@dm.uba.ar> Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6119 Archived-At: 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/ ]