[Om3] [Fwd: ISSUE-33 (statistical symbols): Kyle's Siegrist's request for new Content-MathML symbol]

[Paul Libbrecht]

Le 24-oct.-08 à 12:09, Professor James Davenport a écrit :

> On Fri, October 24, 2008 8:07 am, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
>> there was a request for symbols in content MathML3, we should talk  
>> about
>> what to do here from the CDs side. In particular, I know that  
>> binomial
>> coefficient is in combinat1, but what about the others?
> I enclose the original message, since it's hard to understand  
> otehrwise.
>
>> Here is what I would love to see added to Content MathML:
>
>> 1. Binomial coefficient
> As MK says, in combinat1

so we would make the whole of combinat1 in MathML-cd-group?

>> 2. Permutation coefficient:  n(n -1)...(n - k + 1), usually
>> rendered P(n, k) or nPk or (n)k.
> Personally, I've always written n!/k!, but if there's a call for it, I
> could always add it to combinat1.

Looks like it's common so it's probably needed in combinat1.

>> 3. A probability operator with an optional "given" construction
>> (for conditional probability).  Typical rendering would be
>>    P(A, B, ...) (without conditioning) or  P(A, B, ... | C, D, ...)
>> (with conditioning).
> For the monadic versions P(A), or P(A|C D ...) I have no problem: I  
> assume
> their absence is due to the fact that we never had a probabilist on  
> board
> in OM. I assume the proposers P(A, B, ...) is P(A&B&...), and we MIGHT
> want to see that represented explicitly.

I've never seen the "," sepped version (though been TA in such branch,  
shame on me!).

>> 4. An expected value operator with an optional "given" construction
>> (for conditional expected value).  Typical rendering would be E(A,
>> B, ...) (without conditioning) or  E(A, B, ... | C, D, ...) (with
>> conditioning).
> Again, I hace no problem with E(A) or E(A|C ...).
> I have no idea what is meant by E(A,B).

You can measure expectation on any event, can't you?

>> 5. General union, to form the union of Ai over i = a to b, or the
>> union of Ai where i is in an index set I.  This would work just
>> like the sum construction, with a bound variable and with lower and
>> upper limits, or with a bound variable and with a condition.
> I discussed this in Barcelona
> (http://www.jem-thematic.net/files_private/Barcelona.pdf). As far as
> MathML2 is concerned, I quoted
> <apply> <union/> <bvar>i</bvar> <lowlimit>... </apply>
> Hence it seems as if we are in the general 'condition in MathML3'  
> debate.
> For OpenMath I quoted 'big union on make_list' which I admitted was  
> not as
> satisfactory, especially as in the summation case one can write
> <OMS name="sum" cd="arith1"/>
> Maybe we shou;d bite the bullet and have the equuivalent of sum.

Relayed to other topic.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2203 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20081024/e90f8f3b/attachment.bin