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?

37 posts
• Page **2** of **2** • 1, **2**

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?

- bo198214
- Tetronian
**Posts:**690**Joined:**Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm**Location:**Berlin - Germany

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?)

Well, not ALL of them. I think that longdome and its kind was solved in the end (not on this forum, though), and got an equation where some variables occured more than once, inside different sets of parentheses - and it was impossible to make it simpler. Wendy might remember it better than me...

- Marek14
- Tetronian
**Posts:**913**Joined:**Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

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.

"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.

"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.

"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.

- moonlord
- Tetronian
**Posts:**605**Joined:**Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm**Location:**CT, RO, CE EU

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.

Is that something like one of my high school math teachers showed us? That x=0 AND y=0 can be written as x^2+y^2=0, x=0 OR y=0 is xy=0 and x>=0 is x-abs(x)=0?

- Marek14
- Tetronian
**Posts:**913**Joined:**Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

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".

- bo198214
- Tetronian
**Posts:**690**Joined:**Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm**Location:**Berlin - Germany

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".

Well, different radii can be effected by replacing, for example, x^2 with x^2/a. This will convert all of them to the norm.

- Marek14
- Tetronian
**Posts:**913**Joined:**Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

37 posts
• Page **2** of **2** • 1, **2**

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests