[om] Re: comments on documents

[jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk]

On Sun, 19 May 2002, Richard Fateman wrote:
> jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> > The recent thread on OpenMath caught me while marking: here's my
> > summary and two cents worth. All quotes are from fateman unless
> > otherwise attributed.
> >>From fateman at cs.berkeley.edu Sat May 18 17:27:32 2002
> > 
> >>>  OM encoding doesn't specify presentation.
> >>>
> > I think David Carlisle refuted this one. OpenMath allows a user to
> > specify presentation in any way they want from the OpenMath.
Read again: OpenMath allows the user to specify. You can write any 
stylesheet or equivalent converter you want. You can put as much or as 
little algebraic processing inthat as you want.
If you wish, you can write a styelsheet that prints
<OMOBJ>
  <OMATTR>
    <OMATP>
      <OMS cd="fatemanstylesheet" name="displaydivide"/>
      <OMS cd="logic1" name="true"/>
    </OMATP>
    <OMA>
      <OMS name="divide" cd="arith1"/>
      <OMS name="one" cd="alg1"/>
      <OMV name="x"/>
    </OMA>
  </OMATTR>
</OMOBJ>
one way, and the same thing with "false" another way. Of course, that 
stylesheet still neds rules as to what to do if that attribute isn't 
present. 
> So then you are rejecting the OM supporters who seem to think that
> there is only one representation for 1/x and it is the same
I don't recall anyone saying that there was only one possible 
representation: for a start the numerator can be either <OMS name="one" 
cd="alg1"/> or <OMI>1</OMI>
> as the representation for
>     1
> -------
>     x
No the point is that the symbol "divide" carries no information one way or 
the other.

James
--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems