From: Andreas Strotmann <strotman@klein.math.fsu.edu>

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:42:27 -0500

Message-ID: <34D25752.446B@klein.math.fsu.edu>

To: rminer@geom.umn.edu

CC: www-math@w3.org, strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:42:27 -0500

Message-ID: <34D25752.446B@klein.math.fsu.edu>

To: rminer@geom.umn.edu

CC: www-math@w3.org, strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de

Hi Robert, > > - What is the reason for not including the two standard <quant>ifiers, > <forall/> and <exists/>? > > I think we will not be including <forall/> and <exists/> because > of exactly what started to happen to you, in your comment; this > addition starts to propagate changes like crazy. I hate to say this, but isn't that a sign that there is a real problem with the current MathML design lurking here? After all, additions ideally should NOT "propagate changes like crazy" -- in fact, they shouldn't propagate any changes at all, only additions. And MathML should be open to additions, no? Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that you're about to exclude the fairly well-behaved and easy-to-markup standard variable-binding quantifiers while at the same time including the much more problematic and difficult-to-markup variable-binding operators? And isn't it true that the content mark-up for the latter is affected almost exclusively when introducing the former? And again, shouldn't that be read as a sign that the changes introduced by adding the standard quantifiers are necessary ones for "good" content markup? > However, it is > still being discussed, and if someone can really make the case > that the addition won't introduce some serious logical > inconsistency, we may still do it. Personally, I'd be much more happy if MathML 1.0 would *include* simple quantifiers and *exclude* generalized quantifiers (including operators like int, sum, limit) than vice versa. Such a MathML content markup would have a much greater chance of being extensible "without introducing some serious logical inconsistency" than the current design does, I suspect. The reason for this suspicion is that such a MathML 1.0 would correspond fairly closely to the structure of entry-level symbolic logic formulas, and these have been studied for such a long time and so intensively that a software engineer may reasonably assume them "safe". Generalized quantifiers (including operators) are "advanced" problems by comparison, and may not be as well understood yet, thus requiring further study before attempting to define "logically consistent" content markup for them. Best, AndreasReceived on Friday, 30 January 1998 17:42:48 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:28 UTC
*