[Om] Content-dictionary notations draft

[W Naylor]

sorry, yes! stupid error!

Bill

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Professor James Davenport wrote:

> Bill wrote (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:08:05)
> >    ?
> >   d
> > ----- f(x)  in this example, we might expect ? = x + y
> > d  d
> >  x  y
> In fact ? = #{x,y}. More complicated still, and requiring general 
> arithmetic, is 
>    ?
>   d
> ----- f(x)  in this example, we might expect ? = x + y
>  2  3
> d  d
>  x  y
> where ? = 5 (as 2+3: a rendered which printed 2+3 would not be taken 
> seriously), but in 
>    ?
>   d
> ----- f(x)  in this example, we might expect ? = x + y
>  m  n
> d  d 
>  x  y
> one has no choice but to print m+n.
> <begin logician mode>
> I suspect that this means that a "perfect rendered" has to solve the 
> constant problem (Richardson, 1968), but this doesn't mean that a 
> mechanism can't specify addition, and leave the renderer to do the best it 
> can. 
> <end logician mode>
> 
> Paul said (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:52:44)
> > Your template function idea is nice and useful, for sure, but it would rely
> > on one enormous unknown: a specification of evaluation of OpenMath 
> > (somewhat like the NMC is approaching).
> I hope my point above answers this.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-
-                  Dr. W.A. Naylor
-
-                  http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~wn
-
-                  work tel: +44 1225 386183
-
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*