I have a few minor comments after reading your 14 writeup: 1) I've started to use the convention of capitalizing "Binary Rule" and the "Exactly 1 rule" ("Rule"?). We should decide on what to use throughout the paper. 2) I think many instances in which you use tau_14 you really want to use A_t. This is because tau_14 is the rule that maps A_t to A_{t+1}, whereas A_t is the actual occupied set.
Yeah, as I was changing this all over it looks as if i made yet a few notation errors. Looking at the 14 proof, I need to specify what cells are in A_t by the 1 condition and which are by the 4 condition. I agree that \tau_I isn't correct, but do we have another means to specify A_t? Maybe I'll define A_t as 14, but B_t as exactly 1 or something like that...
3 comments:
I have a few minor comments after reading your 14 writeup:
1) I've started to use the convention of capitalizing "Binary Rule" and the "Exactly 1 rule" ("Rule"?). We should decide on what to use throughout the paper.
2) I think many instances in which you use tau_14 you really want to use A_t. This is because tau_14 is the rule that maps A_t to A_{t+1}, whereas A_t is the actual occupied set.
That's all for now. Looks good Hannah!
Also we've been putting the "rule number" for tau in the subscript rather than superscript. (i.e., we've been writing tau_12 rather than tau^12)
Yeah, as I was changing this all over it looks as if i made yet a few notation errors. Looking at the 14 proof, I need to specify what cells are in A_t by the 1 condition and which are by the 4 condition. I agree that \tau_I isn't correct, but do we have another means to specify A_t? Maybe I'll define A_t as 14, but B_t as exactly 1 or something like that...
Post a Comment