Definition talk:Set of Literals

Ad explain: The "inverses" in this case are formal symbols. They do not mean anything just yet. Their function will have to be made clear by defining an operation on top of $S^\pm$, which is probably going to be based on some algebraic operation on $S$.

So at this moment there is just the definition of the set with the two operations. Does that clarify things? &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Er, sort of. IMO the "informal definition" is at the moment somewhat confusing. Perhaps it ought to state that these inverses do not yet exist in that they have yet to be defined.


 * There are a number of subtleties to this definition, notably the fact that $\theta$ has no fixed points. This surely implies that there are specifically no self-inverse elements in $S^\pm$? So if $S^\pm$ were the underlying set of a (yet to be defined) algebraic structure, that structure would have no identity?


 * I (and by implication other browsers of this site) would have a better idea of what it means if there was a context to fit this into, but as yet that does not really exist yet. I'll leave alone and let this concept be evolved. --prime mover (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed that is what it implies. I guess $S^\pm$ is in the end just an intermediate step towards defining an algebraic structure which will in the end be based upon some kind of further construct (equivalence relation or whatever) on top of $S^\pm$.
 * I'll amend the informal definition on that point specifically, as it is informal anyway. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)