[Om] Multistep "equation" symbol?

Bruce Miller bruce.miller at nist.gov
Tue May 12 02:59:30 CEST 2009

Lars Hellström wrote:
> Bruce Miller skrev:
>> ... Perhaps <OMR> would be useful here?
> Not really. 

Of course it doesn't solve the whole problem
by itself, but may provide hints for cooperative

>> My main point being, if one _were_ to define
>> such a symbol, it would seem that more than one
>> "Multi<something>" would be called for.
> No, this one suffices fine. One could certainly invent specialisations 
> of it, which were guaranteed to always imply a relation between the 
> extremes provided the construction as a whole fits some syntactic 
> pattern, but that's a bit like asking for a language in which you may 
> only express truths. The necessary theorems that a specific sequence of 
> relations combine to some relation between the extremes can equally well 
> be applied to the basic "multistep" as to a specialisation thereof.

It seems there's at least a different intent.
In the case of "a<b=c" the "=" simply
asserts equality and the whole thing
is really a shorthand for the conjunction.
Perhaps this is a "multirelation" ?

To the extent that your multistep example conveys
more than the conjunction does, that
excess is different than the case above;
"step" doesn't really apply above.
Perhaps even your use of "=" is different.

> Lars Hellström

bruce.miller at nist.gov

More information about the Om mailing list