- From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.ca>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:15:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: paul@activemath.org (Paul Libbrecht)
- Cc: RobertM@dessci.com (Robert Miner), www-math@w3.org

The content definitions for the arc trig functions used in appendix C were largely based on Abromovitz and Stegun, Section 4.4 -- see, for example, http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-MathML2-20021219/appendixc.html#cdef.arccos and more generally, were chosen to be consistent with OpenMath. Stan. > > Robert Miner wrote: > > >>Although it looks interesting for an amount of task... do I understand that > >>you're opening the door to yet another system with possibly, say, yet another > >>interpretation of the arccos ? > >> > >> > > > >Yes. But as this is true for any new piece of software that has an > >interpretation for functions like arccos, I'm not sure what the > >implication is? That no new mathematical software should be written? > > > > > What it means is that when one starts to write a software which is > expected to be connected to the rest of the world, one has to ask how > good this connection is to happen. > In the case of MathML-content, I thought the lack of specification of, > at least to my knowledge, the inverse-trigonometric functions have made > Mathematica and Maple MathML-content behave inconsistently. > Based on this experience (which I'd like to see one day written > somewhere under an "interoperability" heading in the w3c.org/math > pages), a new software being written should then declare something like: > the inversed trigonometric functions shall behave the same as Maple, > Mathematica (or OpenMath) ones. > > Hence my statement which was, sorry for that, sort of sketchy. > I would surely not prevent new software to be written! > > Paul >

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 18:10:06 UTC