Re: What is this notation?

On 29 Jan 2006 07:37:54 -0800, brutuz86@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>The problem is that the reference book doesn't use such a notation. The
>notation must have been in the lectures but I haven't attended those (I
>am not studing this course; I am just keeping the exercises).

Keeping the exercises for the course without having any
access to the course or even to notes for the course
is not going to work very well.

> I was
>just thinking whether this is some general notation for something.
>
>
>
>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2006 04:15:04 -0800, brutuz86@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I have a problem with the the notation " [m,n] ". What could it mean in
>> >the following exercises?
>> >
>> >1. Let [m,n] \in \Z. Prove that [m,n]=[m+p,n+p] for every p=0,1,2,...
>> >
>> >2. Prove that [m,n]*[p,q] = [0,0] <=> [m,n] = [0,0] or [p,q] = [0,0].
>> >
>> >We have been talking about equivalence relations but I have no idea
>> >what could this notation mean.. So, could someone help me, please?
>>
>> Look back in the section of the book preceding these exercises.
>> I don't know what book you're talking about, but I bet that there's
>> a construction of the integers as equivalences classes of ordered
>> pairs of natural numbers that you didn't notice somehow...
>>
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages