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>

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 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:29 UTC
*