This is in followup to Patrick and Ping's postings in regard to naming classical objects. It's unclear to me whether we have a strong(ish?) disagreement here. I'm certainly not in favor of *requiring* that authors name the well-known objects of their papers. This would be too much to expect, in my opinion (no one expects the analogue in standard text, I imagine a vast menuing system (probably equivalent to ZF) to classify "all" objects, and do we expect to name the various non-standard models? -- where do we stop?) I do want to define an HTML-Math wherein authors are able to specify such things if they wish. My view of the project to date has been that we are trying to define a language which will (a) render to the various sensory media in such a way that a "knowlegeable" human can interpret the notation properly, and (b) allow for paths by which authors or other third parties may upgrade the notation to one with fuller semantical attributes. If this group has widely diverging opinions on the degree to which semantics must be carried, we'll probably have difficulty settling on a standard. But do we differ in this? Maybe not. Ping's statement > 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. is much stronger than I would have said myself. There actually is a good sense (a formalist or nominalist sense) in which "the complex numbers" are adequately represented by "C", and I'm fairly certain that Raman reliably distinguishes this "C", as do those who read the "C", by context. -RonReceived on Friday, 5 July 1996 08:16:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 15 April 2023 17:19:57 UTC