[Trac] [OpenMath] #42: CD arith1

[OpenMath]

#42: CD arith1
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
     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 clange):

 @Jakob, here are my ideas about copying the discussion to the
 [http://wiki.openmath.org wiki] – Thanks!  (''Additional comments that
 cannot easily be put into practice are in italics as a to-do for my own
 modelling of the
 [http://kwarc.info/projects/swim/pubs/lwa08-argumentation.pdf
 argumentation ontology]; you can ignore them for copying.'')

 Let me divide the comments along the lines:

 > "More description, which should be (mathematically) both as informal as
 possible and as formal as necessary, is needed of such phrases as
 'arithmetic functions'. We cannot assume (even in the K-12 world) that
 such phrases 'mean the same to everyone'; and if we are making that
 assumption then it should be very easy to explain, with only minimal
 formality, what this 'common understanding' is.

 Issue with the CD.

 > This appears a few times: 'The argument should be numerically valued.'
 Meaning what exactly? Distinct from 'must be a number?' And why does it
 not appear for all arithmetic things?

 Another issue with the whole CD, I think it's just too much work to put it
 to every affected symbol, and it's rather about a general policy.

 >  Are the following supposed to be distinct mathematical concepts? If so,
 how do I know which should be used?
 > This operator is used to construct an expression which represents the
 ...
 > This operator is used to construct the ...
 > Descriptions like the one below are very useful for 'knowledgeable
 mathematicians who work with mathematical software'; but is that our only
 audience? [In this particular case <plus/>, I would restrict it to the
 (mathematically) associative operation on mathematical numbers (not
 numbers in computers). Note also that 'multiplication' comes with no such
 detailed description,right or wrong!]
  If no operands ...

 I'd file it as an Issue separately for each symbol where it is applicable.

 > 'the symbol representing ...' should probably be 'this symbol represents
 ...', otherwise we are implying that there is no other way to 'represent
 ...'.
  Such phrases are sometimes followed by 'the ...' but sometimes by 'a/an
 ...'. Both are somewhat misleading but using all two of them suggests a
 non-existent distinction.

 I'd file (a copy of) this as an Issue with any symbol where it occurs.

 > What is 'right-division' doing in a description for K-12 maths? [Not the
 only problem with <divide/>.]

 Issue with divide.

 > The following may or may not include the case 'when the 2nd argument is
 a matrix': 'when the second argument is not an integer ...'

 Issue where it occurs.

 > Are the terms 'function' and 'expression' and 'argument'
 interchangeable?

 That sounds pretty general again, so I'd say: Issue about the CD.

 > Apart from their historical provenance, why should the descriptions of
 <sum/> and <product/> look totally different from those for the <big_*/>s.

 I'd file this as an Issue once for "sum" and once for "product".  Still, I
 don't really understand what the "big" symbols are referring to, as there
 is no "big_sum" nor a "big_product." So I'd suggest that for each of those
 two issues, you post a plain reply asking "What is big_...?"

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.mathweb.org/OM3/ticket/42#comment:3>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.