From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:38:24 -0400

Message-ID: <444D5360.4060905@nist.gov>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:38:24 -0400

Message-ID: <444D5360.4060905@nist.gov>

To: www-math@w3.org

Stan Devitt wrote: > Bruce, > > See my comments below about unicode and double-struck D. > > > Stan > > On 4/24/06, *Bruce Miller* < bruce.miller@nist.gov > <mailto:bruce.miller@nist.gov>> wrote: > > > In other words, it seems to have been another historical development > that we're kinda stuck with. As David says below: "That's life" > > > [Stan] > We are not "Stuck with it." It is very fortunate (and no accident) that > it is worded this way. (See my earlier many to many mapping comment.) > > Mathematics provides a special challenge to unicode because a large > collection of characters are re-used with alternative meanings on a > regular basis. > > The formal mathematical definition of differential depends very heavily > on the mathematical domain intended by the author and the differences > could be important. > So it can be wrong to map the character to one specific precise > mathematical definition with this character in unicode. > > The current wording is needed so that authors are free to re-use the > characters in other mathematical contexts. This re-use is deliberate. > Authors often re-use the symbol because a new concept behaves in a > similar fashion to the the original use of the character. The phrase > "often used for differentials" is about as far as you can go. Hi Stan; Not to drag this out any more than necessary, but... I can accept that rationale too, but doesn't it just point the question at the other end? Ie. Since having a differential doesn't require ⅆ nor does using ⅆ imply a differential, why bother defining ⅆ at all? (double-struck d is already available with mathvariant) Or, why not call it &doublestruckd; ? -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 22:38:43 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:37 UTC
*