Tag: Source edit
Line 30: Line 30:
   
 
: [[User:p進大好きbot|p-adic]] 07:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: [[User:p進大好きbot|p-adic]] 07:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Response ==
  +
> It is meaningless to add the defintion after issues are pointed out. Also, even if you refer to the third entry, it is ill-defined as is explained.
  +
  +
The examples you picked, Q<0,2,1> and Q<1,2,1> can already have the rule5 or rule3 applied, meaning the process doesn't apply.
  +
  +
So, you are wrong, the notation is well-defined.
  +
  +
> The article explains the reason. Just read it.
  +
  +
The reason you say "Since there are common errors in the original version and other versions, we start with the explanation of the original version first." is a false because the current notation '''is well-defined'''. You can reference as many typos and mistakes from a draft
  +
  +
> I have explained that it should not be dealt with just a typo, although you have ignored it.
  +
  +
The "x" is a typo too. In the original draft of the notation, I was planning on using the fundemental sequence concept from Hyper Notation by using "x" as the fundemental sequence index which I called the iterator, but I soon scrapped this idea. But, I kept some of the old definition there by accident. There. Now do you understand, '''all mistakes you mentioned are typos, errors and mistakes I made, that do not contribute to the well-definedness or ill-definedness of a notation.'''
  +
  +
[[User:Nirvana Supermind|Nirvana Supermind]] ([[User talk:Nirvana Supermind|talk]]) 08:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:22, 23 November 2020

Questions

What was x? The creator insists that the issues on the original definition are based on typos, but I cannot understand what are typos for the undefined value x, called the outer iterator and it. It is unreasonable to conclude that it was just a typo, because the removement of the whole notion of the outer iterator drastically changes the description. Unless a reasoning is given, I will edit the explanation as if the issues were only based on typos.

Also, I propose not to add an intuitive description like "most likely", as this is a formal article. If the creator wants to insist the "most-likeliness", then it is good to write "the creator states that ... most likely ..." or something like that.

p-adic 01:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


To the creator

STOP removing the category for ill-defined numbers by ignoring the actual issues. If you continue it, I will add the feature of the removement also to this article.

p-adic 02:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To p進大好きbot

The notation is not ill-defined. The "entry" referred to was an entry starting from the third entry in the brackets. Also, why do you insist that the Original version be put first? I kept it. That should be enough. What is the point of saying a notation is ill-defined because there was a typo or two from my XS-based draft? Nirvana Supermind (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

> The "entry" referred to was an entry starting from the third entry in the brackets.
It is meaningless to add the defintion after issues are pointed out. Also, even if you refer to the third entry, it is ill-defined as is explained.
> Also, why do you insist that the Original version be put first?
The article explains the reason. Just read it.
> What is the point of saying a notation is ill-defined because there was a typo or two from my XS-based draft?
I have explained that it should not be dealt with just a typo, although you have ignored it.
p-adic 07:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Response

> It is meaningless to add the defintion after issues are pointed out. Also, even if you refer to the third entry, it is ill-defined as is explained.

The examples you picked, Q<0,2,1> and Q<1,2,1> can already have the rule5 or rule3 applied, meaning the process doesn't apply.

So, you are wrong, the notation is well-defined.

> The article explains the reason. Just read it.

The reason you say "Since there are common errors in the original version and other versions, we start with the explanation of the original version first." is a false because the current notation is well-defined. You can reference as many typos and mistakes from a draft

> I have explained that it should not be dealt with just a typo, although you have ignored it.

The "x" is a typo too. In the original draft of the notation, I was planning on using the fundemental sequence concept from Hyper Notation by using "x" as the fundemental sequence index which I called the iterator, but I soon scrapped this idea. But, I kept some of the old definition there by accident. There. Now do you understand, all mistakes you mentioned are typos, errors and mistakes I made, that do not contribute to the well-definedness or ill-definedness of a notation.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.