08/13/2009, 09:05 AM
(08/05/2009, 08:16 AM)Kouznetsov Wrote: P.S. If you have some Ficial, we can make a SuperFicial for it.
But do not tell economists about our achievements: they deal with Inflation...
LOL! It made me think about the other superfactorial and the superduperfactorial. This conflicts with the super-factorial terminology (as in the superfunction of factorial), because "super" is such a popular prefix. Being a popular prefix, we cannot change its meaning to be more precise in a permanent way. I think the "super" prefix is so general that it cannot be pinned down to a specific meaning, even in the context of a single paper. It is one of those prefixes that does not want to be defined. You may define "superlogarithm" or "superfunction" however you want, because you can still use "super" in front of other words. As long as it stays this way, "super" will continue to add meaning to new words, but as soon as you define "super", then every word that uses it will loose all of its meaning. "Superlatives" will become superfunctions of latives and "Superheroes" will become superfunctions of heroes. It doesn't lead to a nice semantic world. "Super" cannot be tamed; it will always be more than you think it is.
Andrew Robbins