"left side of the assignment" vs. "left-hand side of the assignment"

[Jaakov]

Dear all:

Today I ran into the following issue. We have assignments, not an
equation here:


For each \(k < \omega\) let
\(((X^k_t)_{t<n},(Y^k_t)_{t<n}) \colonequals
F_1^k\left((\emptyset)_{t<n},(\emptyset)_{t<n}\right)\)
and
\((Z^k_t)_{t<n} \colonequals H_2^k((\emptyset)_{t<n})\)
(where \(k\) is an upper index on the left-hand side and an exponent on
the right-hand side of the assignments).


Would you still write "-hand" here with the same ease as for equations?

Best,

Jaakov.

[William Elliot]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015, Jaakov wrote:

Would you not use TeX. Would you explain the problem in plain ascii text?
Look below and tell me what it means, if anything.

Today I ran into the following issue. We have assignments, not an equation
For each (k < omega) let
(((X^k_t)_{t<n},(Y^k_t)_{t<n}) colonequals
F_1^kleft((emptyset)_{t<n},(emptyset)_{t<n}right))
and
((Z^k_t)_{t<n} colonequals H_2^k((emptyset)_{t<n}))
(where (k) is an upper index on the left-hand side and an exponent on the
right-hand side of the assignments).
Would you still write "-hand" here with the same ease as for equations?
Best,
Jaakov.

[Jaakov]

Post by William Elliot
Would you not use TeX. Would you explain the problem in plain ascii text?
Look below and tell me what it means, if anything.

Today I ran into the following issue. We have assignments, not an equation
For each (k < omega) let
(((X^k_t)_{t<n},(Y^k_t)_{t<n}) colonequals
F_1^kleft((emptyset)_{t<n},(emptyset)_{t<n}right))
and
((Z^k_t)_{t<n} colonequals H_2^k((emptyset)_{t<n}))
(where (k) is an upper index on the left-hand side and an exponent on the
right-hand side of the assignments).
Would you still write "-hand" here with the same ease as for equations?
Best,
Jaakov.

Dear William:

It does not matter what the formula means, the context is too large for
this discussion. The formula is of the form

...^k... := ...^k...

where k is in the right upper position. Please do not suggest to change
the upper index position to circumvent the problem, it would raise a
problem elsewhere.

[William Elliot]

It does not matter what the formula means, the context is too large for this
discussion. The formula is of the form
...^k... := ...^k...
where k is in the right upper position. Please do not suggest to change the
upper index position to circumvent the problem, it would raise a problem
elsewhere.

That's too vague for a cogent reply other than
:=
is not math but a computer thing.

[Jaakov]

Post by William Elliot

It does not matter what the formula means, the context is too large for this
discussion. The formula is of the form
...^k... := ...^k...
where k is in the right upper position. Please do not suggest to change the
upper index position to circumvent the problem, it would raise a problem
elsewhere.

That's too vague for a cogent reply other than
:=
is not math but a computer thing.

It's a style of introducing notation on the left(-hand) side. Yes, also
in maths.

[Jaakov]

Post by Jaakov

Post by William Elliot

It does not matter what the formula means, the context is too large for this
discussion. The formula is of the form
...^k... := ...^k...
where k is in the right upper position. Please do not suggest to change the
upper index position to circumvent the problem, it would raise a problem
elsewhere.

That's too vague for a cogent reply other than
:=
is not math but a computer thing.

It's a style of introducing notation on the left(-hand) side. Yes, also
in maths.

The exact formula is given in my previous posting. If you don't WISH to
read tex, please don't.