[Om3] trouble with container markup example

[Professor James Davenport]

On Thu, February 12, 2009 8:55 am, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> (bringing to om3 only)
>
> Le 12-févr.-09 à 01:58, Professor James Davenport a écrit :
>
>>> But you do not hit the Russel's paradox since the
>> Not in this case, I admit. But at the time we were unsure how to bar
>> Russell's paradox but allow more expressivity.
>>> set_of_expressions_such_that( x, domain, f )
>>> = map(f,suchthat(x,domain))
>>> The issue is having to use map, I think where one wishes to speak
>>> of the set
>>> of function-results and not speak about applying f to the set.
>> But OpenMath does not imply computation :-)
>
> Sure it does not.
>
> To do a rendering, it's a funny story, I understand we would need a
> pattern for
>    map(lambda.z.f(z),suchthat(x,domain))
> which should render as { f(x) | x in domain}
>
> with another pattern where the f is not a function and the map
> operator is visible.
To take Robert's example, which I suggested was
map(lambda x.interval(0,x),R),
I don't think it is far-fetched to map THIS to
\{interval(0,x), x \in R\}

Of course, where there is not an explicit lambda-expression to
deconstruct, life is harder, but I am not sure what else than a 'map'
could be rendered. It would be a truly intelligent renderer that
transformed map(sin,R) into [-1,1].

James Davenport
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology
Formerly 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