[Trac] [OpenMath] #48: CD set1

[OpenMath]

#48: CD set1
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  jauecker      |          Owner:  kohlhase  
         Type:  proposal      |         Status:  new       
     Priority:  major         |      Milestone:  CD3 Draft1
    Component:  OM3 Standard  |        Version:            
   Resolution:                |       Keywords:            
Include_gantt:  0             |   Dependencies:            
   Due_assign:  YYYY/MM/DD    |      Due_close:  YYYY/MM/DD
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Old description:

> '''Chris:'''
>

> I cannot follow the description of <map/>.  It seems to be something to
> do with mapping functions over collections.  Is this a K-12 thing?
>
> Also, this is not what the word 'map' or 'mapping' normally means in
> K-12 maths.
>
> Still Chris:
>
> The description of 'suchthat' gives only the software view. Also,it does
> not allow for the possibility that the object described (but probably not
> constructed) is not a set.
>
> 'The set entries are given explicitly.' Does the use of a function that
> is not effectively computable count as 'explicit'?
>
> The general level of the descriptions in this section suggests that it
> would be appropriate to point out that for the formulation of mathematics
> being assumed here, some of these ideas are 'primitives'. My favourite
> foundation uses only one undefined symbol: <in/>.
>
> '''Michael:'''
>

> >I cannot follow the description of <map/>.  It seems to be >something to
> do with mapping functions over collections.  Is this >a K-12 thing?
>
> It is a discrete Math thing that is also often used in CS.

New description:

 '''Chris:'''


 I cannot follow the description of <map/>.  It seems to be something to
 do with mapping functions over collections.  Is this a K-12 thing?

 Also, this is not what the word 'map' or 'mapping' normally means in
 K-12 maths.

 The description of 'suchthat' gives only the software view. Also,it does
 not allow for the possibility that the object described (but probably not
 constructed) is not a set.

 'The set entries are given explicitly.' Does the use of a function that is
 not effectively computable count as 'explicit'?

 The general level of the descriptions in this section suggests that it
 would be appropriate to point out that for the formulation of mathematics
 being assumed here, some of these ideas are 'primitives'. My favourite
 foundation uses only one undefined symbol: <in/>.

 <map/> this meaning of map can be applied not only to a set; it is
 most often applied to lists/sequences.  If it si applied to a set it
 most naturally produces a multi-set wheich then defines a set.

 '''Michael:'''


 >I cannot follow the description of <map/>.  It seems to be something to
 do with mapping functions over collections.  Is this a K-12 thing?

 It is a discrete Math thing that is also often used in CS.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.kwarc.info/OM3/ticket/48#comment:3>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.