W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Java API for MATHML

From: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:00:21 +1300 (NZDT)
To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0302261251160.23754@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:43:43 +0100
> From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
> To: www-math@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Java API for MATHML
> Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:44:05 -0500 (EST)
> Resent-From: www-math@w3.org
>
>
> Stan Devitt wrote:
>
> >The content definitions for the arc trig functions
> >used in appendix C were largely based on Abromovitz
> >and Stegun, Section 4.4  -- see, for example,
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-MathML2-20021219/appendixc.html#cdef.arccos
> >
> >and more generally, were chosen to be consistent
> >with OpenMath.
> >
> >
> Actually which version of Abromovitz and Stegun ?
> I hear some noise that the definition of arccot has been changed between
> versions.

If you check the Description child of CD, you will note that it says:

"They are defined as in Abromowitz and Stegun (ninth
    printing on), with precise reductions to logs in the case of
    inverse functions."

this is a relic of NAHG, so I take no responsiblity ;-) However it seems
to me fairly precise ... no? Anyway as I said in a previous mail check out
transc3 if you want the multivalued functions.

> MathML having decided not to specify the definition domain... this may
> be a problem, or ??

I guess that MathML decided to religate these more 'mathematically
pedantic' issues to some other mechanism viz. OpenMath

> (hence my request for any new system built with compatibility in mind to
> declare >precisely< its compatibility).

we can but hope!

cheers,

Bill

>
> Paul
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 19:00:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:54 GMT