From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:10:49 +0100

Cc: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, Daniel Marques <dani@wiris.com>, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>

Message-Id: <9455401F-D310-4BB0-ACD5-DFDB79B366E7@hoplahup.net>

To: Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:10:49 +0100

Cc: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, Daniel Marques <dani@wiris.com>, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>

Message-Id: <9455401F-D310-4BB0-ACD5-DFDB79B366E7@hoplahup.net>

To: Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann@gmail.com>

Le 20 mars 2012 à 08:12, Andreas Strotmann a écrit : > More to the point, a sequence of assignments would therefore 'naturally' be expressed as nested lambda expressions in MathML to preserve semantics. > My personal opinion, as a mathematician, is that this way of writing might be well-founded in terms of expressivity or logic, it remains fully opaque to most mathematicians except logicians. The concept of binding is understandable, and even that of mapping, but having to enter everything within lambda terms tends to be a real readability problem. paulReceived on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:11:22 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:44 UTC
*