From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:40:59 +0200

Message-Id: <dea32c18358726d0260f3644d9b0e0d4@activemath.org>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:40:59 +0200

Message-Id: <dea32c18358726d0260f3644d9b0e0d4@activemath.org>

To: www-math@w3.org

Le 6 oct. 05, à 22:13, Stan Devitt a écrit : > 2. For elipses in sums and sequences I have taken a more formal > approach than has been suggested so far. I defined a function - > roughly > special_seq( base, operand , before_index_low,before_index_high, > elipse_token , after_index_low, after_index_high ) > so that > special_seq( a , "+" , 1 , 3 , "..." , n-1 , n ) > can be mapped to the presentation > a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + ... + a_{n-1} + a_n > and to the computational form > Sum( a_i , i=1..n ); > > There is no ambiguity (at least no more than usual) for either the > computation or presentation. Of course a transform is required. This one is real nice! I understand this as a form of "macro-like-symbol" which includes declaring new symbols for the sole purpose of a better presentation. I think it has quite a private scope... From this, I definitely understand that, in order to go to some computational system you need a transformation of your content, right ? If this is under your control, no issue... but what if you want to expose it to the world ? I know that for search I'd like Sum(a_i, i=1..n) to match this one. I also know that the content-piece I'd like to be put in my clipboard if I want to paste in Maple should not be using special_seq but Sum. Agreeing with these two possible requirements? Who's working on such rewrites ? paul, getting excitedReceived on Friday, 7 October 2005 07:41:06 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:36 UTC
*