[Om] Tutorial or example collection for OpenMath?

Michael Kohlhase m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de
Thu Feb 27 13:22:46 CET 2014


Dear Konrad,

following this discussion, there is something you should also realize.

The OM CDs at openmath.org are made with general maths (the K14
fragment) in mind. They are quite vague, since they try to cover the
general case.

If you need more specific "semantics", then you can always use (your
own) more specific CDs. You just have to agree on them with your
communication partners, and you can even submit them to the OpenMath
Society for distribution and canonicalization.

Michael


On 27.2.14 10:36, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> David Carlisle writes:
>
>  > There are STS signatures for all the core CDs and there is a link from
>  > each symbol in the (x)html presentation of the CD to the corresponding STS.
>  > 
>  > So the status of the STS is that they are an official part of the
>  > OpenMath release, but you don't have to use them to use the CDs if they
>  > are incompatible with your needs (or you just don't like them:-)
>
> OK, so I can either use "basic" OpenMath with loose semantics, or
> "typed" OpenMath with stricter semantics. For the latter, I have the
> choice between a light-weight type system (STS) and a more rigorous
> one (ECC). Does that sound about right?
>
> Are there ECC signatures as well for the core CDs? Or is ECC merely
> a framework in which applications can define their own types?
>
>
> Lars Hellström writes:
>
>  > I feel another piece of general design principles coming up...
>
> Great :-)
>
>  > What ultimately defines semantics of symbols are the programs that read or 
>  > write OM objects -- those that the standard (somewhat unintuitively) refers 
>  > to as phrasebooks. Different phrasebooks are not required to agree on the 
>  > semantics of a symbol: one phrasebook may support sets as first argument of 
>
> OK, that fits with the summary I tried to make above. Type signatures
> are then a way to fix semantics, but everyone can come up with their
> own.
>
> Is there any way to state the semantics rules to be applied in an
> OpenMath document? This could either be something precise like "use
> the STS signatures from the OpenMath site" or the simple statement
> "this document was created by phrasebook XYZ".
>
>  > preprocess expressions accordingly, should they feel like doing so. So the 
>  > little lie involved is rather "I lie when I say this floating-point 
>  > operation really is addition, but the error is negligible, and you know what 
>  > I mean anyway." Besides, if you express something scientific, I suspect you 
>
> That's fine for many applications, but the non-associativity of
> floating-point addition is sometimes a real problem, in particular
> when program writers happily ignored it. See
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.21 for a real-life story about a
> program that produces different results depending on the number of
> processors it runs on (due to dependence on summation order), with the
> differences being so important that they change the interpretation of
> the results.
>
> Konrad.
> _______________________________________________
> Om mailing list
> Om at openmath.org
> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: m_kohlhase.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://openmath.org/pipermail/om/attachments/20140227/23fb4d69/attachment.vcf>


More information about the Om mailing list