bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 3 years, 4 months |
seen | May 22 at 17:57 | |
stats | profile views | 18 |
Jul 25 |
awarded | Editor |
Jul 25 |
revised |
Formalization of n-ary functions
General formatting |
Jul 25 |
comment |
Formalization of n-ary functions
I think the idea of clone is quite interesting. However, using clones pre-supposes a formalization of $n$-ary functions, so I'm not sure how this applies to my question. |
Jul 25 |
awarded | Scholar |
Jul 25 |
accepted | Formalization of n-ary functions |
Jul 25 |
comment |
Formalization of n-ary functions
Also, if $f$ really is unary, this definition boils down to the usual. Awesome! |
Jul 25 |
comment |
Formalization of n-ary functions
@Sridhar: Why did you not make that an answer? It looks like a great idea! |
Jul 25 |
comment |
Formalization of n-ary functions
Thanks for the answer. I like the way in which you define tuples. I been born and raised to defined $n+1$-tuples as $(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_{n+1}) = (a_1, (a_2, \dots, a_{n_1}))$, so thinking of treating them differently didn't really enter my head. If tuples are defined as you show, then $f$ doesn't just "feel", $n$-ary, I think it can truly be called $n$-ary. |
Jul 25 |
asked | Formalization of n-ary functions |