User blog comment:Boboris02/Large number combinatorics II:Trying to prove something interesting/@comment-30118230-20170204183225/@comment-30118230-20170204205746

First,yes,I used \(\prec,\succ,\bot,\top\) and ,yes,they are not part of standart mathematical language.....and so what?They are well-defined mathematical symbols,so I don't see a way in which they are a problem.

Second,I explained how \(S-\) works in the blog post and you seem to know that.

Same goes for \(T\) and \(V_k\).

Third,for the elements in a set S1 to be mapped in correspondence to all the elements in set S2 means that every element in S1 that is in S2 is then added in pair with every element in S2,that is the same element,so that all elements in S2,that are not in S1 are not in a pair with any elements from S1 and if S1 and S2 are ordered tuples(I'll talk about this later) ,then their elements are compeared so that an element in S1 is the exact same as an element of S2 and if S1 = S2,then the n-th element of S1 is also the n-th element of S2 and are in a pair.Otherwise,if S1 is not the same as S2,then the n-th element of S2 is not the n-th element of S1(if there even exists such an element,that is the same as the previously described S1).

Fourth,here I agree with you.I know the Kleene star does not give a tuple order,as shocking as this may sound,I actually did some research on this.However,here I used something similar to a Kleene star.I should have made this clear in the blog post.Sorry.

Fift,I explained what that means in the blog post,\(\hat{\bigcup}S1\) uses all of the elements of the set S1,that satisfy the surtain conditions if there are such.If there aren't it uses a universal set of all elements of the set S1 and uses them individually.This is useful when it comes to mapping all the elements individually from one set to another.

Sixth,You obviously either:1.you don't know what that means and you want hide behind that so you ask me,2.you know what it means and you don't see how it works in my function,or,3.you know what it means and you know how it works in my function,but you just want nitpick a lot.Since you seem to know and understant a lot more than me in this area,I'm guessing it's not 1,but the way you wrote it just seems like that's the case.Then,it's either 2 or 3.2 seems like a good answer.......but it's YOUR decision wheather you want to be the guy who likes to nitpick or to be someone who actually gives some good arguments and makes some interesting points.

In case it's 1,then all you have to do is look up the definition of it and if you still don't understand,then ask a friend.

In case it's 2,then sorry,I mean every part of the string S that could be embedded into any other part of the string,such that the string properties can remain the same and the string could work the same way with those parts removed,with the string growing from there.

In case it's 3,You decide(read above).

Seventh,I agree (for the most part) that my special universal set is something,that could be replaced with set-builder notation and as of the time of writing this blog post(and a lot before that),I knew about it.However,the reason I made that notation is because with this could express more specific things(I know you probably want to know exactly what I mean by that,like always,but I don't want to go into details(I don't want this comment to be a mile long(if you want details we can talk about this on the IRC or the Discord))).