On 23 Mrz., 09:31, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 23, 8:14 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:15:00 -0700, John Nagle wrote: > > > That's some professor inventing his very own variation on predicate > > > calculus and writing a book using his own notation and terminology. > > > There's no sign of footnotes or references to prior work. The notation > > > doesn't seem to do anything not previously possible; it's just > > > different. > > > You say that as if it were unusual in maths circles :) > > Haha. As opposed to programmers who have all agreed to use the same > language. > > Anyway, I have browsed the book and agree with Paul Rubin that there > doesn't seem to be any unusual notation in it, although there are a > numbers of topics that I am not really familiar with. > > -- > Arnaud
The author at least introduces his notation in the initial chapter. This is good style among mathematicians who introduce conventions at the beginning of their books or in an appendix. Note that I'm with Paul here but I'm not sure what John is complaining about anyway. Maybe sequent calculus ( natural deduction ) which was introduced by Gentzen around 75 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequent_calculus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
