FAQ
This is a cool quote from the paper, "Parsing TEX into Mathematics":

We agree that there are good reasons for trying to come up with a
single universal grammar and semantics for mathematics notation, but
we are concerned that any efforts to find a fixed and complete
notation must founder on the shoals of ambiguity. Even granted some
oracle of disambiguation, it appears that total generality must
require fairly substantial extensibility and the ability to
incorporate context into interpretation. One simply cannot expect to
represent all past and especially all future mathematics with a fixed
set of notations. Therefore one must provide tools for extension that
are sufficiently "universal" for all further work.

-- http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/parsing_tex.pdf

Can you do painless TEX molecular modeling I wonder? I must google...

-gb
Epistemologist at-large
_______________________

Search Discussions

  • Arthur T. Murray at Sep 11, 2004 at 2:22 pm
  • Gene Boggs at Sep 11, 2004 at 8:26 pm

    * On 11-Sep-2004 at 10:55AM PDT, Arthur T. Murray said:

    http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html is a Theory of Cognitivity.

    Uhh. I must be missing something here. This giant page has
    nothing at all about TEX rendering, notation or even the concept
    of expressiveness. What is the reply here?

    Gene
  • Jon Orwant at Sep 12, 2004 at 11:35 am

    On Sep 11, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Gene Boggs wrote:

    * On 11-Sep-2004 at 10:55AM PDT, Arthur T. Murray said:
    http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html is a Theory of Cognitivity.

    Uhh. I must be missing something here. This giant page has
    nothing at all about TEX rendering, notation or even the concept
    of expressiveness. What is the reply here?
    There is none; your posting simply contained keywords that triggered
    his spambot. He's a crank:

    http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html

    -Jon
  • Jon Orwant at Sep 12, 2004 at 12:02 am

    On Sep 11, 2004, at 5:21 AM, Gene Boggs wrote:

    This is a cool quote from the paper, "Parsing TEX into Mathematics":

    We agree that there are good reasons for trying to come up with a
    single universal grammar and semantics for mathematics notation, but
    we are concerned that any efforts to find a fixed and complete
    notation must founder on the shoals of ambiguity. Even granted some
    oracle of disambiguation, it appears that total generality must
    require fairly substantial extensibility and the ability to
    incorporate context into interpretation. One simply cannot expect to
    represent all past and especially all future mathematics with a fixed
    set of notations. Therefore one must provide tools for extension that
    are sufficiently "universal" for all further work.
    Math, like everything else, needs an enema. Style and content are
    mixed up all over the place:

    x is a scalar, but B<x> is a vector.

    R stands for range, but ornate R (&real;, for those keeping score in
    HTML) stands for the set of real numbers.

    Probability folks use middle-dot as a placeholder, like $_. (OK,
    that's pretty cool.)

    Inconsistency across disciplines: most fields use I<i> for the square
    root of -1, but electrical engineers already use i for current, so they
    use I<j> for the square root of -1. I hope this has resulted in at
    least one electrocution.

    Requires too much flexibility from typesetting packages (consider
    Eulerian notation, where the eighteenth derivative of "f" is "f" with
    eighteen dots over it, or cascading exponentials (2 to the 3 to the 4
    to the 5 to the 6 to the 7 makes for a pretty eentsy 7).

    People who flip A upside down and turn E around left-to-right just for
    kicks deserve no mercy.

    -Jon

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupai @
categoriesperl
postedSep 11, '04 at 9:20a
activeSep 12, '04 at 11:35a
posts5
users4
websiteperl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase