(02/02/2021, 01:44 AM)MphLee Wrote: This follows from the discussion held at: MphLee, Generalized Kneser superfunction trick (the iterated limit definition), (January 21, 2021), Tetration Forum.
Quote: \( f \circ g \circ z \)
Wtf is that nonsense? lol
What nonsense is this? It's abstract nonsense!
Hey, Mphlee. I absolutely agree with you, but I think you misread me. I write,
\( f\bullet g \bullet z \)
To make it distinct. Which inherently also means \( f \circ g \circ z \) as you say it. I was mostly just making an argument against using \( \circ \). Whereas, someone sees that with circ and thinks it an abuse of notation; whereas with a bullet, itis given this meaning. On top of that, now we can look at, a sequence of forms (don't worry, I don't use forms, it's mostly just a comparison of notation) \( f_j \bullet g_j \bullet z \) and we can attach an operator/functor to them, \( \Omega_j \). I just really don't like the use of \( \circ \) notationally/typographically. I believe it would warrant confusion. But I'm so happy that you see the categorical structure. Again, I had help by someone really smart in designing this notation...<_<
EDIT: Oh and I look forward to reading the PDF!
I was also suggested \( f \leftarrow g \leftarrow z \) but it was agreed bullet is much better. This one is a bit toooo categorical, If you know what I mean.
Edit2:
\(
ds \leftarrow z\\
\)
looks fucking awful, eh?