Post Reply 
Set theory (operators)
10-24-2014, 05:31 PM
Post: #11
RE: Set theory (operators)
Well there is that ... (the Math Tools approach, which, naturally, I didn't think of)!

Still, (Math Tools | User | <scroll waaay to the bottom of that list> | User Functions | <scroll through that list> | select function - in my case, I can still type, "intersect({blah}, {blah})," faster.

{blah} intersect {blah} works -- but {blah} ∩() {blah} doesn't quite get the context correct, and can't work in that format. How would one get past the parens enclosing expected params?

Inefficient for sure. Necessary? I don't know. The Prime gods will sort it out, no doubt.

-Dale-
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
Set theory (operators) - DrD - 10-21-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: Set theory (operators) - Han - 10-22-2014, 03:36 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - DrD - 10-22-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - Joe Horn - 10-23-2014, 08:25 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - dbbotkin - 10-24-2014, 01:57 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - Joe Horn - 10-24-2014, 03:57 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - Joe Horn - 10-24-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Set theory (operators) - DrD - 10-24-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: Set theory (operators) - DrD - 10-24-2014 05:31 PM
RE: Set theory (operators) - parisse - 10-24-2014, 08:39 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)