[Om3] OpenMath Symbols for Symbolic Computation

[Paul Libbrecht]

Peter,

isn't your concern actually defining the scope of a (set of) evaluation?
I agree with you that making the scope of evaluation is fundamental  
for computation but maybe it should be considered as such and not  
considered within the object? I would mean something such as :

  evaluate-with-setting( inverse-morphism(xx), setting(base-ring,  
known-statements))

Among meaningful features of this approach is the fact that setting  
could be actually transmitted by reference (you and I knowing that  
group G part of context is actually finite but not needing to repeat  
it, that this module is noetherian...).

paul

PS: that is a whole core discussion!


Le 18-sept.-08 à 09:57, Peter Horn a écrit :

> Point taken, but in our case we don't really like to distinguish
> between what you call "simple things" and the rest -- that would just
> make things more complicated for us ;)
>
> Your x+1 may very well be a polynomial in x, y, and z over QQ. This
> information is lost, but essential!
>
> Just an example: If you say x^2-2, it may be irreducible if you take
> QQ as ground-ring but reducible if you choose RR. So this is
> incredibly important, and the very same is true about matices, if you
> think of inversion, eigenvalues and the like.

-------------- 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/20080918/e1b164cc/attachment.bin