[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: integrals
- 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@Unpublished{CHP91:CalculusDurations,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.