• PlexSheep@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t like how the pairs $(h, h^‘)$ are implicitly the same as $(h^’, h)$. I think the post confuses the pairs with small sets. Normally, order matters in a pair.

    • notabot@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The formatting on your comment seems have gotten a little messed up, so appologies if I’ve missed your point, but the paper seems quite specific that the pair (h,h') is not equivalent to (h',h), especially in term of Def 1. For instance, the result of f(h,h') may be positive while the result of f(h',h) is negative or zero.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        The formatting you’re seeing is controlled by carets (^). Just replace the start and end of the superscript text with them.

        I see this often when talking about exponents: x^2 is less than x^3.

        The superscript needs to be surrounded to work properly: x(x+1) is greater than x(x-1).

        In this case, the effected text is $(h, h^‘)$ and $(h^’, h)$. I’m not sure why the prime notation needs to be superscripted, probably something to do with the formatter that is expectinng $s. I think the correct formatting (at least for me) is (h, h) and (h, h).