Patrick D. F. Ion wrote: > > The case of SL(2,C) brings up a couple of questions aside from accents. I > note that Robert's display list shows a bold C, presumably for the complex > numbers, as, for instance, MR style prescribes. However, many choose a > blackboard bold or doublestruck font, and so then there's an argument for > hoping that people might consider a math entity ℂ which the > reader could display in the locally favored way. It makes the most sense for the conceptual entity "the complex numbers" to be represented by a separate named entity. It is certainly *not* a variable named "C" in any sense -- and you would need it to be distinguished for it to be properly rendered to speech. > In contrast to MR, Robert did not choose to put the _abbreviation_, SL, > naming the classical Special Linear group in roman, as opposed to a > presumed italic within a mathematical expression. Again one could argue > here for a math entity &SL;. Definitely. Again, the "SL" represents an entity with a special meaning taken from convention, not just something named "SL". It should be indicated that way. Because there are so many entities with special meanings in various scopes of discourse, this is another argument why extensibility is needed very early. The author of this article could simply include a with the paper a small context definition that defined the entity "SL", and gave simple rendering instructions. I envision a setting where, if you are reading this paper and notice that SL is an entity (say, because it is highlighted in some distinctive colour), but don't know what it means, you can ask "what does SL stand for?" In a windowed GUI, you might do this by moving your mouse over the SL; then a small popup would explain "Special Linear group", with the text taken directly from the context definition. This is the purpose of a context definition. PingReceived on Friday, 5 July 1996 02:51:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 15 April 2023 17:19:57 UTC