[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: integrals****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Sun, 8 Aug 93 16:09 BST

>I'm not sure I understand. \sum and \prod produce a big sigma and pi, >respectively, don't they? Are you referring to the "Eindhoven Quantifer >Notation", which uses > $(\Sigma i \mathbin{:} 0 \le i < n \mathbin{:} i^2)$ That's precisely what I was referring to. >Doesn't apply to integrals, though. (Can you integrate over countable sets? >I've only ever seen it done over reals or complex nos...) There's nothing stopping you integrating over a very countable set like: \[ \int_0^0 x dx \] :-) Yes, normally integration is only performed over uncountable sets, usually real invervals. But there's no reason not to use Eindhoven notation for uncountable sets, just because they have a terminal case of construcivism doesn't mean everyone who uses similar notation has to :-) The \smallint is also used in the Duration Calculus of Hoare et. al: CHP91 @Unpublished{CHP91:CalculusDurations, author = "Zhou Chaochen and C. A. R. Hoare and Anders P. Ravn", title = "A Calculus of Durations", note = "Oxford University Computing Laboratory", } This has probably appeared somewhere, sorry I don't have a fuller reference. Alan.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Miscellany** - Next by Date:
**Math italic variations (was Re: Miscellany)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: integrals** - Next by thread:
**integrals** - Index(es):