[om] Bad bugs in trig CD

Richard Fateman fateman at cs.berkeley.edu
Wed Nov 5 17:10:47 CET 2003


I have not seen enough of the DLMF recently to know how it
is going, (the only full chapter I saw was on the Airy functions)
but how about this:
figure out what exactly it is that you wish to refer to
in A&S as a definition, and copy it into the CD. You could
also say that you believe it to be consistent with the
definition in A&S and DLMF, but you don't require people
to then go find one of those references.  There are many
(equivalent) definitions of sine, cosine, etc.  Pick one.
e.g. sine (etc) could be infinite series, good for real or
complex, and as these things go, fairly constructive.


RJF

PS, I find this vaguely amusing since the need to define
what is meant by such functions was one of the points I raised
at OM meeting 1 or 2, adjacent to some ISSAC meeting.

Michael Kohlhase wrote:

> Bill,
>
> I am not sure that this warrants the efforts, If I remember correctly 
> the DLMF will be released this year, so it would be better to change 
> the  definitions to that (given that the functions are the same), and 
> then we will have a totally different notion of referencing anyway.
>
> Michael
>
> Bill Naylor wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think that this is actually a bug (maybe an inconsistancy in
>>>> A & S), section 4.3 has specific subsections (viz. 4.3.1 - 4.3.6) 
>>>> which
>>>> are labelled 'Definitions',  and I take it that these are the 
>>>> definitions
>>>> that transc1 refers to.
>>>
>>>
>>> I notice that all of the symbol definitions in transc1 are of the 
>>> general
>>> form:
>>>
>>> "this symbol represents the blah function as described in A & S 
>>> section 4.?"
>>>
>>> would it not be more accurate (and correct) to have a definition more
>>> like:
>>>
>>> "this symbol represents the blah function as described in A & S 
>>> section 4.?.?"
>>>
>>> and point to the specific definition subsection in A & S.
>>
>>
>>
>> The above is supposed to be a question to the general OpenMath 
>> community.
>> If the concensus is "yes it would be worthwhile" I will be happy to make
>> the changes and submit this to David Carlisle for installation.
>>
>> I await responces :-)
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>

--
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



More information about the Om mailing list