[Trac] [OpenMath] #60: CD limit1
OpenMath
trac at strawberry.eecs.jacobs-university.de
Fri Sep 12 16:07:01 CEST 2008
#60: CD limit1
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
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:'''
>>The limits need functions on a totally ordered set (and some toplogy on
the codomain).
>as above, it needs that for the limit to exist, but it doesn't need that
to create the expression term.
Not quite: my point was badly expressed. I meant that, for example,
for left-right limits the totality is needed to give meaning to the
concept, independent of the existence of a limit. Otherwise it is
like saying that + needs only a set (which I would be quite happy with)
but for that one we explicitly invoke the magic of a semi-group.
But again the details are not the genuine issue: it is the randomness
of the explicit assumptions and the existence of a whole host of
implicit ones that concerns me.
So I am not disagreeing with David's idea of using nothing except
comforting expressions that say absolutely nothing at all. Like:
>mean is the operator element representing a mean or average.
[Although I would remove 'or average' here as it is misleading (there
are lots of 'averages' but we only mean the one called 'the mean'.]
Iam saying, yet again, that we need to have a clear policy and be
reasonably consistent in applying it (for 'K-12 oriented decsriptions
in MathML', not necessarily for the CDs).
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.kwarc.info/OM3/ticket/60#comment:2>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.
More information about the Trac
mailing list