W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2000

Re: comments re draft version 2.0

From: David Eppstein <eppstein@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:28:23 -0700
To: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <4627222.3164380103@hyperbolic.ics.uci.edu>
Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@radicalflow.com> writes:
>      O(x)   could be written.
>      <apply><csymbol definitionURL="CRCStandardMath_30"
>          encoding="text">O</csymbol>
>          <ci>x</ci>
>      <apply>
...
>      <apply><csymbol definitionURL="...">floor</csymbol> ...</apply>
[plus a recommendation to use mixed content-presentation style so the 
floor actually looks right]

So, is there a good rationale for including basic freshman/sophomore 
statistics notation like <sdev/> while forcing equally basic 
freshman/sophomore discrete math and computer science notation like O, 
floor to go through these unstandardized and unpretty convolutions?

Re my third point, chains of inequalities (or of subset relations, or 
other partial orders), the suggestion was to represent it as  a 
conjunction of binary relations.  I respect the point that it may be 
difficult to come up with a correct definition of a valid chain (although 
it seems simple enough to me to require all relations in a chain to be 
equality, inequality, and strict inequality from a common partial order), 
but a chain is semantically different from a conjunction, in that it has 
the additional requirement that the rhs of one inequality be identical to 
the lhs of the next, so that one can automatically apply transitivity to 
deduce a relation between any two members of the chain.  I thought the 
purpose of content style over presentation style was to preserve useful 
semantic information?
-- 
David Eppstein       UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
eppstein@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Received on Monday, 10 April 2000 21:28:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:49 GMT