- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:40:59 +0200
- To: www-math@w3.org
Le 6 oct. 05, à 22:13, Stan Devitt a écrit :
> 2. For elipses in sums and sequences I have taken a more formal
> approach than has been suggested so far. I defined a function -
> roughly
> special_seq( base, operand , before_index_low,before_index_high,
> elipse_token , after_index_low, after_index_high )
> so that
> special_seq( a , "+" , 1 , 3 , "..." , n-1 , n )
> can be mapped to the presentation
> a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + ... + a_{n-1} + a_n
> and to the computational form
> Sum( a_i , i=1..n );
>
> There is no ambiguity (at least no more than usual) for either the
> computation or presentation. Of course a transform is required.
This one is real nice!
I understand this as a form of "macro-like-symbol" which includes
declaring new symbols for the sole purpose of a better presentation. I
think it has quite a private scope...
From this, I definitely understand that, in order to go to some
computational system you need a transformation of your content, right ?
If this is under your control, no issue... but what if you want to
expose it to the world ?
I know that for search I'd like Sum(a_i, i=1..n) to match this one.
I also know that the content-piece I'd like to be put in my clipboard
if I want to paste in Maple should not be using special_seq but Sum.
Agreeing with these two possible requirements?
Who's working on such rewrites ?
paul, getting excited
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 07:41:06 UTC