StrmCkr wrote:(1/2)r1c1 ¦ r1c5 ¦ r3c6 ¦ (2/1)r5c6 => -12 r5c1
Please. Don't mix that s**t with my original suggestion. Seems that you've completely misunderstood that idea if you think it needs any "dual weak links", but it's no wonder because you're so busy pushing your own half-baked ones. Either way, please do not appropriate the '/' for yet another use.
Yes your notation hasn't really any issues with the exception it dosent indicate the dual weak that functions as a strong link.
It doesn't have to indicate anything because it's not pretending to be something that it isn't. It's not an AIC and it can never be. It's two, and it's honest about it. It was meant to be a simple and easily understood shorthand for two parallel X-Chains, nothing else, and I think it does that one job relatively well. Your "improvements" have just made it much more incorrect and incomprehensible than any alternative it was meant to replace. Good job.
Why do you even care so much? As far as I know, you don't even write chains manually. I write chains every day so this is probably much more important to me than to you, and for the same reason I probably have a better idea what works in practice (and in theory) and what doesn't. Still you keep pushing ideas that I would never use (and probably no one else either), and even a symbol that I just told I wouldn't even be able to type normally (i.e. I would never use it even if I thought it was useful). Not to even mention that those ideas are totally incompatible with existing standards which you don't know very well either. Wtf.
I'm sorry to say, but it seems to me that you have to ruin everything because you just can't be happy with someone else's ideas, even if you don't really understand them or the motivations and arguments behind them. Why don't you first try to understand, and then come up with something that is actually better? I would welcome that. I really don't give a damn about whose ideas win -- as long as they're the best ones available.
