[Om3] CD-review little report

[Professor James Davenport]

On Thu, September 25, 2008 8:45 am, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Le 22-sept.-08 à 10:05, Professor James Davenport a écrit :
>>>>   - I have rephrased "takes no argument" to "cannot be applied"
>>> Certainly an improvement.
>> What we really mean is that it is a constant, rather than an operator.
> to me that is the same meaning
Exactly. What I was trying to do is get to the point-of-view of the
average mathematician, say a K-14 reader/writer, who does not view (the
point of the paragraph below) constants as nullary operators, and
therefore not only does not need to be told that zero cannot be applied,
but would actually be confused if he were.
I notice that my copy of the CDs has <role>constant</role> on zero, and
wonder whether that isn't a better way.
>> Of  course, Universal Algebra regards constants as nullary
>> operators, which is
>> probably where the confused wording came from.
>> Actually, I don't think we need any words here: just delete the
>> sentence,
>> so that (both_sides, for example) reads "This symbol is used ... both
>> sides."
>
> Doesn't it help clarity to make sure that no-one uses it applied
> anywhere?
> I thought so.

James Davenport
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology
Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept
Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199
Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication