[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: Complex conjugate
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"