Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In any case, this should be convincing evidence to write p_i instead of x_i > > and interpret the cycle index series as a symmetric function. > > You are probably not saying that instead of x you want to use the letter p > instead. That would be ridiculous.
Well, perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but I am saying exactly that. And, additionally, we should keep in mind that we really are working with symmetric functions. > As you have shown, one only has to take the CIS, substitute for the x_i some > symmetric polynomials and voila, you get what you want. Why is that so > problematic? It isn't. Only, good notation is often very useful. You see, substituting for the x_i other symmetric functions (not polynomials, by the way), we do not get anything sensible. > As I understand BLL, we should rather consider (extend AC to) weighted > species. That is how you get your substitutions. Am I wrong? No, I don't think so, but to be honest, I don't know. In any case, we cannot start yet another project. multisort is difficult enough, and in any case far more important than weights. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Aldor-combinat-devel mailing list Aldor-combinat-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aldor-combinat-devel
