[Trac] [OpenMath] #59: CD minmax1
OpenMath
trac at strawberry.eecs.jacobs-university.de
Fri Sep 12 16:04:54 CEST 2008
#59: CD minmax1
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Comment (by jauecker):
'''Chris:'''
>We don't say that you can only use the <int/> operator with integrable
functions,
Sure, but for K-12 it would be reasonable to limit to a smaller,
understandable class of functions (assuming we said anything at all
about their domains, such as what a funtion is and whether it is real,
complex, quarternionic ...). For example we could only integrate
functions with 'discrete discontinuities' (thus nothing on 'bounded
variation' ... hope I recalled that bit correctly:-).
>MathMl spec doesn't need to take a view does it?
Can I reiterate: my examples are not there to argue for a particular
wording!
So no, a view is not needed, from the viewpoint of a formal specification.
But all the time I see the current spec taking such views, often
implicitly.
For example:
The current stuff is permeated through and through with 'the view'
that there are some magic beasts lurking around that I would call
'elements of a (dense subset of a) real field', which may possibly be
'the Reals' (assuming they are unique:-) but with hints sometimes that
'the view' is of something (mathematically) totally different such as
'the IEEE reals': but we are never told about what beasties have been
blessed, or why!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.kwarc.info/OM3/ticket/59#comment:4>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.
More information about the Trac
mailing list