That's why I coined SSET.
Yes I was thinking of your SSET, even of mention it here.
But I could not find a short equation with them.
By applying of SSET would you be able to come to the one equation of Marek?
That's why I coined SSET.
bo198214 wrote:After having a glance through it, I would say cool thing!
Are there still questions open?
I mean we have now really good expressivity.
We have the RNS products (), [], <>. With the 0 notificator we have also all the original Wendy's products (sorry but dont know how to call them). And with them all your graphotopes can be realized (am I right with this assumption?)
bo198214 wrote:By applying of SSET would you be able to come to the one equation of Marek?
moonlord wrote:bo198214 wrote:By applying of SSET would you be able to come to the one equation of Marek?
You always get one equation, but it's ugly generally. Oftenly it's easier to read the original rules with the logical link, like (e_1 and e_2) or (e_3 or not(e_4))...
But it does show that any supersystem of equations and/or inequations can be transformed in one equation (aka f = 0). If useful, will post the complete SSET here.
moonlord wrote:You always get one equation, but it's ugly generally.
bo198214 wrote:moonlord wrote:You always get one equation, but it's ugly generally.
Yes, thatswhy I ask whether this SSET equation is the same (can be transformed to) that Marek gave. I mean Mareks one has only one radius, and am not sure but it seems also with [] we can not realize every radius and length. Thats a bit strange about these equations.
Would be nice to have your SSET here. Suitably in a thread in "General".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests