Matthew wrote:

> John:

> I think you have a typo in post #13. You mean \\(\check{G}\\) not \\(\hat{G}\\), right?

Right, sorry. I've gone back and fixed that - I hope Simon doesn't get upset.

> You said in Lecture 65 that \\(\hat{F}\\) is the **companion** of \\(F\\) while \\(\check{F}\\) is the **conjoint** of \\(F\\).

Right. I always mix up "vee" and "wedge" when typing in LaTeX, and apparently I mix up "hat" and "check" too. I seem to do bad at all these arbitrary binary conventions.

> John:

> I think you have a typo in post #13. You mean \\(\check{G}\\) not \\(\hat{G}\\), right?

Right, sorry. I've gone back and fixed that - I hope Simon doesn't get upset.

> You said in Lecture 65 that \\(\hat{F}\\) is the **companion** of \\(F\\) while \\(\check{F}\\) is the **conjoint** of \\(F\\).

Right. I always mix up "vee" and "wedge" when typing in LaTeX, and apparently I mix up "hat" and "check" too. I seem to do bad at all these arbitrary binary conventions.