Closed m-bouville closed 10 months ago
Thanks for the list and the suggestions to fix the errors. This helps a lot! I will update the primer accordingly when I am back in office next week.
Best, Dominik
I fixed the spelling and grammar errors. However, I don't see the problem with the formula right now: Setting x_0=0 triggers x_1=1 due to (x_0 OR x_1). x_1 only appears in the triple clause at the end so it has no further influence. x_0 has only one further occurrence in (NOT x_0 OR NOT x_2). This clause is fulfilled by x_0=0 and removed, also having no further influence. Maybe, the NOT was badly rendered or the syntax with the overline not properly explained by me, or am I missing something else?
Thanks again for you help and formatting it this nicely such that I could just do find and replace!
You intend to write (NOT x_0 OR NOT x_2), but I get (x_0 OR x_2):
even though the TeX code from MathJax does have the bar :
(x_0\vee x_1)\wedge (x_2 \vee x_3)\wedge (\overline{x_0}\vee\overline{x_2})\wedge (\overline{x_1}\vee x_2\vee\overline{x_3})
Odd. However, I removed that section anyway in favor of a more high-level description and links to more high-quality material, as I noticed that I won't have the time to bring the text onto a satisfying quality level. Thus, I will close this issue. Thanks again! :)
In the formula (which I cannot copy and paste) following "Let us look on an overly simplified example: Consider the formula [...]": setting
x_0
to 0 constrains bothx_1
andx_2
to 1. You mention justx_1
and then go on to setx_2
to 0.Miscellaneous typos: