<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Hopefully Interesting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pietrokc.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:05:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Topological Notation by Pietro</title>
		<link>http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/topological-notation/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Pietro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/topological-notation/#comment-35</guid>
		<description>Gabriel, thanks for your comments and suggestions!

I suppose one of the motivations for the &quot;filled ball&quot; symbol is to make it more similar to the symbol for &quot;openness&quot; --- I never liked the big typographical difference between the notations for &quot;interior&quot; and &quot;closure&quot;. It does take a little longer to write by hand, but general topology rarely fills pages and pages of calculations, so I find it to be manageable.

Also, I&#039;m much more a &quot;colorful shapes&quot; than &quot;letters&quot; kind of guy: my variables for big, complicated expressions tend to be black/white circles, squares and triangles, or tiny drawings of what the expression represents. :o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gabriel, thanks for your comments and suggestions!</p>
<p>I suppose one of the motivations for the &#8220;filled ball&#8221; symbol is to make it more similar to the symbol for &#8220;openness&#8221; &#8212; I never liked the big typographical difference between the notations for &#8220;interior&#8221; and &#8220;closure&#8221;. It does take a little longer to write by hand, but general topology rarely fills pages and pages of calculations, so I find it to be manageable.</p>
<p>Also, I&#8217;m much more a &#8220;colorful shapes&#8221; than &#8220;letters&#8221; kind of guy: my variables for big, complicated expressions tend to be black/white circles, squares and triangles, or tiny drawings of what the expression represents. <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_surprised.gif' alt=':o' class='wp-smiley' /> )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Topological Notation by Gabriel Haeser</title>
		<link>http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/topological-notation/#comment-34</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Haeser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/topological-notation/#comment-34</guid>
		<description>that is a good idea... 

but the &quot;filled ball&quot; symbol might be a little boring to make it by hand.

for subsets, I find it quite annoying to use \subseteq for usual inclusion, I find it better to use \subset, and in case of proper inclusion, I use \subsetneq.

using A^c for complement and \bar{A} for closure, I suggest using A \subset^\circ X for open sets and A \bar{\subset} X for closed sets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that is a good idea&#8230; </p>
<p>but the &#8220;filled ball&#8221; symbol might be a little boring to make it by hand.</p>
<p>for subsets, I find it quite annoying to use \subseteq for usual inclusion, I find it better to use \subset, and in case of proper inclusion, I use \subsetneq.</p>
<p>using A^c for complement and \bar{A} for closure, I suggest using A \subset^\circ X for open sets and A \bar{\subset} X for closed sets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Marco</title>
		<link>http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/about/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22</guid>
		<description>Pietro, que fantástico esse blog que você criou!!
Rapaz, interessante que outro dia estava pensando num teste maluco, onde as pessoas teriam suas áreas profissionais trocadas para testar as situações, por mera curiosidade mesmo. hehehehe

Cheguei a conclusão de que, além da engenharia e exatas, vc se sairia um ótimo acadêmico de Direito, independente de ser advogado, juiz, promotor, etc, etc...
hehehehe

Como vão as coisas aí em Campinas??

Grande abraço!

--Marco</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pietro, que fantástico esse blog que você criou!!<br />
Rapaz, interessante que outro dia estava pensando num teste maluco, onde as pessoas teriam suas áreas profissionais trocadas para testar as situações, por mera curiosidade mesmo. hehehehe</p>
<p>Cheguei a conclusão de que, além da engenharia e exatas, vc se sairia um ótimo acadêmico de Direito, independente de ser advogado, juiz, promotor, etc, etc&#8230;<br />
hehehehe</p>
<p>Como vão as coisas aí em Campinas??</p>
<p>Grande abraço!</p>
<p>&#8211;Marco</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dilworth&#8217;s Theorem I by Dilworth&#8217;s Theorem II &#171; Hopefully Interesting</title>
		<link>http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/dilworths-theorem-i/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Dilworth&#8217;s Theorem II &#171; Hopefully Interesting</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pietrokc.wordpress.com/?p=22#comment-19</guid>
		<description>[...] theorems &#8212; Pietro @ 6:48 am   We continue our discussion of Dilworth&#8217;s theorem from last time. To recall, we proved by (a very algorithmic) induction that, if  is a finite poset whose largest [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] theorems &#8212; Pietro @ 6:48 am   We continue our discussion of Dilworth&#8217;s theorem from last time. To recall, we proved by (a very algorithmic) induction that, if  is a finite poset whose largest [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
