- From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@maplesoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:50:39 -0500
- To: "'roconnor@uwaterloo.ca'" <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>, www-math@w3.org
- Cc: ion@math.ams.org

I agree that a case could be made for inclusion of a conjugate. Furthermore, such inclusion is not a major piece of surgery. I will defer to Patrick for comments on the review/editorial issues, but once again, thanks for the feedback. Stan Devitt Waterloo Maple. > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor > [SMTP:roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:37 PM > To: www-math@w3.org > Cc: ion@math.ams.org > Subject: Complex conjugate > > It would be a shame if the complex conjugate operation did not make it > into MathML. Although it may be getting close to the boundary of the > level > of mathematics that MathML wants to represent, I think it is still > within > the level. It is certainly no more sophisticated than partial > derivatives. > > One usage that immediately comes to mind is in quantum mechanics where > the probability function is defined as: > > <math> > <declare type="fn"> > <ci>P</ci> > <apply> > <times/> > <apply> > <conj/> > <ci>Ψ</ci> > <apply> > <ci>Ψ</ci> > </apply> > </declare> > </math> > > -- > Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca > <URL:http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eroconnor/> > "And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message" > -- Anindita Dutta, "The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy"

Received on Monday, 16 March 1998 08:53:48 UTC