[Om3] CD-review little report

[Professor James Davenport]

On Thu, September 25, 2008 9:47 am, David Carlisle wrote:
>
>
>> I personally would like there to be a unary integration, as the inverse
>> of
>> unary differentiation, and would find it hard to argue for the existence
>> of one and not the other.
>
> I'm confused by this thread. I tried to trace it back but I couldn't
> find the origin of this issue. For indefinite integration OM has
> only had unary integratikn operator taking a function.  There've been
> some proposals to add a form that takes a term and a variable, but
> not to remove the existing symbols, has there?
It seems to have started in a message from Paul:
" - calculus1:
   - same for unary"
which seems to refer back to
"  - removed unary in limits1/limit... it doesn't seem strictly
 necessary (and is rather not k14)"
I had initailly read this as Paul was removing the WORD unary, but Stan
seems to be interpreting it as removing the unary MEANING.

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