Extracting Mathematical Semantics from LATEX Documents Jurgen Stuber and Mark van den Brand,
Abstract. We report on a project to use SGLR parsing and term rewriting with ELAN4 to extract the semantics of mathematical formulas from a LATEX document and representing them in MathML. The LATEX document we used is part of the Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF) project of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and obeys project-specific conventions, which contains macros for mathematical constructions, among them 200 predefined macros for special functions, the subject matter of the project. The SGLR parser can parse general context-free languages, which suffices to extract the structure of mathematical formulas from calculus that are written in the usual mathematical style, with most parentheses and multiplication signs omitted. The parse tree is then rewritten into a more concise and uniform internal syntax that is used as the base for extracting MathML or other semantical information. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmmm. I'm not communicating the idea clearly... > > ======= > >However, mathematics is different. We do NOT have to name any > >specific domain. We can say, the algorithm works for any field k. > >How do you turn that into computer code without making a choice > >for k? Or, we can say the algorithm works for any matrix in GL(n, k), > >for any positive integer n over any field k. > > Recall that the focus is (currently) on importing formulas from CRC. > > At import time the value can be symbolic but at evaluation time the > field needs to be specific. Simplifications available over C might not > be available over R. The integral may be valid over both fields but the > result of the integration might be different depending on that choice. > > If the formula is valid for any field there is no need to specify the \AT > type. Often, though, the type is implicit. For example, in quantum > mechanics the matrix has to be 2x2 and unitary. This implicit type > might be known to the quantum mechanics domain functions so it > might not need markup but general linear algebra functions might > need to know. > > Also, there is no need to specify the field. If k can be any field, the > markup could just say 'Field", using the Axiom category name. Why > is this a problem? > > > ======= > >Somehow I got (perhaps incorrectly) the impression that your > >proposed target is weaver(latex paper, axiom paper)---of course, > >a paper is also a string. > > The proposed target is a CRC formula. There are 10,000 of them on my > shelf and not enough lifetime to retype them. The goal is to make the > mathematics available to computational mathematics programs. > How can I drag-and-drop a formula? > > CRC and NIST have their own target audience, of course, and it is > not (currently) computational mathematics programs. I expect this to > change in the future as the need arises (and I need it now). > > > ======= > >For a limited application (formulas like integrals), such generality is > >perhaps not needed. For that purpose, I do not believe we need a > >new semantic mark-up layer---if I follow your progress correctly, you > >already have a direct [semi-automatic?] translation program (or a > >bunch of macros) that inputs the latex source for a formula (or a > >scanned image with "mathematical OCR" software) and outputs > >the Axiom code (or better still, an Axiom package that allows > >[domain] parameters). > > Umm, no. Fateman (see prior emails) shows that Latex does not have > sufficient semantic information. The OpenMath effort has tried to do > cross-platform communication and latex will not support communicating > the semantics. Problems, such as choice of branch cuts, result in > different answers even for fundamentals like log. So, no, there is no > existing translation program. In fact, there can't be one based solely > on existing latex markup. > > This has not been a problem in the past. Humans bring a lot of semantics > to their search of CRC. But a computational mathematics program does > not. It needs more explicit markup. > > > ======= > >As you acknowledged, the selatex test file with > >weaver(latex string, axiom string) does not yet provide the semantic > >content (that's the semi-automatic part: choosing default domains). > > The test file is intended to drive progress in this problem. The idea > is that the latex string needs minimal markup to generate the axiom > string... what is that markup? The test file will be changed to make > that clear. > > Choosing domains is only one semantic problem. The MN latex > example shows that the syntax is ambiguous. In general, in any > textbook the semantics is in the surrounding paragraphs. > > Take any textbook with formulas (e.g. physics), extract only > the formulas, and a LOT of information is lost. in $E=mc^2$, > is c a constant? Can you tell from the formula alone? > > > ======== > >Why do we need to "unweave" an axiom string with semantic > >mark-up back to latex (with or without semantic)? Is it to ensure > >that weave has an inverse? I don't see that to be the case, since > >we have to make choices for domains to give full computational > >semantics but don't for in the latex string, even including full > >mathematical semantics. I think weave is one to many in general, > >but unweave can be one to one and thus possibly loses the > >generality of input latex string given to the weave routine. > > Axiom currently outputs formula latex without semantics. > > Suppose that you wanted to create the CRC tables using Axiom > to generate the formulas in a systematic way. Wouldn't it be > convenient if the semantic markup was automatically inserted > rather than having to do that by hand? Should Axiom say what > it knows? > > As you note, the Axiom-generated formula might be true for any > field, not just the current one. That's pretty easy to handle. You > just call a routine that either generalizes the output to be "Field" > or one that elides the \AT type markup completely. > > We don't NEED "unweave" or Axiom semantic latex output. > The mathematician in me wants it. > > Tim > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:59 PM, William Sit <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tim: >> >> >> Thanks for taking the time to address my ignorant questions. >> >> You wrote: "For instance, are your formulas given over the real or >> complex domain?" >> >> >> This question is of course relevant in computation. Even in Axiom, which >> allows domains (belonging to a specific Axiom category) as parameters in >> function or package calls, the compiler needs to know the exact domain at >> compile time (and with some more effort, delay this knowledge to run time). >> Your example with \AT for matrix multiplication MN illustrates that. >> >> >> However, mathematics is different. We do NOT have to name any specific >> domain. We can say, the algorithm works for any field k. How do you turn >> that into computer code without making a choice for k? Or, we can say the >> algorithm works for any matrix in GL(n, k), for any positive integer n over >> any field k. >> >> >> Your answer to the question on overloading is of course the "middle way", >> but the problem above (unspecified domains in a category, or element in a >> domain) could cascade and so there has to be a non-specific translation (or >> way to mark-up), perhaps with a "default" specification in case computation >> becomes necessary. >> >> >> Somehow I got (perhaps incorrectly) the impression that your proposed >> target is weaver(latex paper, axiom paper)---of course, a paper is also a >> string. >> >> >> For a limited application (formulas like integrals), such generality is >> perhaps not needed. For that purpose, I do not believe we need a new >> semantic mark-up layer---if I follow your progress correctly, you already >> have a direct [semi-automatic?] translation program (or a bunch of >> macros) that inputs the latex source for a formula (or a scanned image with >> "mathematical OCR" software) and outputs the Axiom code (or better still, >> an Axiom package that allows [domain] parameters). As you acknowledged, the >> selatex test file with weaver(latex string, axiom string) does not yet >> provide the semantic content (that's the semi-automatic part: choosing >> default domains). Why do we need to "unweave" an axiom string with semantic >> mark-up back to latex (with or without semantic)? Is it to ensure that >> weave has an inverse? I don't see that to be the case, since we have to >> make choices for domains to give full computational semantics but don't for >> in the latex string, even including full mathematical semantics. I think >> weave is one to many in general, but unweave can be one to one and thus >> possibly loses the generality of input latex string given to the weave >> routine. >> >> William >> >> >> >> William Sit >> Professor Emeritus >> Department of Mathematics >> The City College of The City University of New York >> New York, NY 10031 >> homepage: wsit.ccny.cuny.edu >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Tim Daly <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:50 PM >> *To:* William Sit >> *Cc:* Dan Zwillinger; Richard Fateman; James Davenport; >> [email protected]; Mike Dewar; axiom-dev; [email protected] >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Axiom-developer] Design Thoughts on Semantic Latex >> (SELATEX) >> >> William, >> >> It is unlikely that authors will provide a special chunk for Axiom in >> papers. >> >> Such an ability already exists but I don't expect anyone will adopt it. >> The \usepackage{axiom} and \begin{chunk} / \end{chunk} pair work and is >> all that is needed. >> >> The primary target of this effort (although not restricted to them) are >> the >> various collections (NIST/CRC/G&R/Jeffrey/etc) of formulas. I use these >> references to create the computer algebra test suite but it takes months >> to do this by hand. I also use them to build regression tests for Axiom. >> >> There have been various attempts to extract semantics from latex. Some >> are quite interesting (see http://mathpix.com). Unfortunately, there >> isn't >> enough information in the latex. For instance, are your formulas given >> over the real or complex domain? >> >> In the longer term I am campaigning to bend these tomes toward a >> more computational mathematics basis. Instead of listing the names of >> 20 invariant graph algorithms we really need reference versions of the >> algorithms. And we need them in machine-readable form. And we need >> them now so a whole generation of computational mathematicians do >> not write yet-another-CAS from scratch. >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, William Sit <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim: >>> >>> >>> Would it be simpler to only add semantic markups to algorithmic >>> descriptions in papers? Authors can be asked to provide a separate chunk >>> with [Axiom] semantic markups (in essence, a skeleton implementation or >>> pseudo-code of the algorithm involved---skeleton because the data >>> structures of mathematical objects are usually ignored in a math paper). >>> This would avoid having to mess with the latex source (already hard to read >>> sometimes) or to "weave" to remove the semantic markups to recapture the >>> latex: all that is needed would be to ignore the semantic chunk). Put >>> another way, the semantic chunk is a direct (by hand or >>> automatic) translation of the latex version of an algorithm chunk. >>> >>> >>> Also, what would be the scope of the added semantic macros in LaTeX >>> (like \AD, \INT)? Can their scope be limited only to semantic chunks? >>> >>> >>> William >>> >>> >>> William Sit >>> Professor Emeritus >>> Department of Mathematics >>> The City College of The City University of New York >>> New York, NY 10031 >>> homepage: wsit.ccny.cuny.edu >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Axiom-developer <axiom-developer-bounces+wyscc= >>> [email protected]> on behalf of Tim Daly <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:17 AM >>> *To:* Dan Zwillinger >>> *Cc:* Richard Fateman; James Davenport; [email protected]; >>> Mike Dewar; axiom-dev; [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Axiom-developer] Design Thoughts on Semantic Latex >>> (SELATEX) >>> >>> My initial approach was too heavy-handed and Axiom specific. >>> >>> It seems the semantic markup task can be viewed as an editor >>> task. Editors don't care about semantics, they just work on text. >>> Viewed this way the markup's only function is decoration for >>> post-processing. It is (mostly) system independent. >>> >>> The edit tasks seem to be {delete, insert, replace} and some >>> post-markup hints {function, type} >>> >>> The delete markup tells weaver to remove the latex completely. >>> This is useful for things like {dx} >>> >>> The insert markup adds missing semantic text, such as {*} which >>> is needed to indicate multiplication. >>> >>> The replace markup gives alternate text for weaver, for things where >>> the function name might differ, e.g. \int -> integrate >>> >>> The function markup names a function that weaver should call >>> which allows special handling in post-processing. It can be any >>> s-expression (the weaver implementation is currently lisp-based). >>> >>> The type markup passes type information to weaver so Axiom >>> knows the target type, useful for things like matrix. >>> >>> The macros are >>> >>> \newcommand{\AD}[1]{#1}% delete >>> \newcommand{\AI}[1]{}% insert >>> \newcommand{\AR}[2]{#1}% replace >>> >>> \newcommand{\AF}[2]{#1}% function >>> \newcommand{\AT}[2]{#1}% type >>> >>> Note that \AI outputs nothing, so 3\AI{*}x == 3x to latex. >>> >>> \AD tells weaver to delete the text, e.g. {\AD ~dx} == ~dx to latex >>> >>> \AR tells weaver to replace the text e.g. {\AR \pi}{\%pi} >>> >>> \AF tells weaver to call a function, e.g. one that knows how to >>> rewrite the input in a special way, or does tracing, etc. >>> >>> \AT adds target type information for Axiom >>> e.g. \AT{3x+6}{POLY(INT)} == 3x+6 to latex but passes it as >>> a Polynomial(Integer) to Axiom >>> >>> For example, >>> >>> $\int{\frac{dx}{ax*b}}$ >>> >>> becomes >>> >>> $\AT{\AR{\int}{integrate}{\frac{\AD{dx}}{a\AI{*)x+b}}}{EXPR}{INT}}$ >>> >>> telling weaver that the target type (AT) is EXPR(INT), >>> the \int is really integrate >>> the dx is to be ignored and >>> the ax+b should read a*x+b >>> >>> There is an obvious tradeoff of markup vs weaver. >>> For example. \int might be known to weaver. >>> Or expressions might call an equation rewriter to add {*} >>> >>> The markup could vary from almost nothing to massive detail >>> depending on the downstream cleverness. >>> >>> This initial markup set seems sufficient to handle every task >>> that requires semantics markup so far. The overhead seems >>> small and the gain seems large. >>> >>> Now the only problem is post-processing the latex. Sigh. >>> >>> There is no such thing as a simple job. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> For those of you at home wishing to play along, there is a >>>> selatex.test1 file at >>>> http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/selatex.test1 >>>> containing 620 integrals. >>>> >>>> Each line is a call of the form >>>> >>>> weaver(latex-string,axiom-string) >>>> >>>> The goal is to transform the latex into Axiom. >>>> >>>> Implicit is the idea that weaver will use the selatex tokens >>>> to disambiguate the input. The current file has no selatex >>>> tokens. They will be added as needed. The idea is to keep >>>> the problem simple by adding print-invisible sematics to the >>>> latex-string. In the ideal case the weaver program is trivial, >>>> as is the markup. Any tradeoff should prioritize simplicity. >>>> Another priority is to align the semantic markup with >>>> Axiom domains in order to ground the semantics with code. >>>> >>>> Once all of these calls translate correctly the Axiom output >>>> routines need to output the latex-string with the added >>>> semantic markup so the mapping is bi-directional. >>>> >>>> The current file only looks at integration as I already have >>>> the latex->axiom text available. Future test files will look >>>> at other areas of interest. The long term goal is to parse >>>> NIST/CRC/etc formulas. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> While paging through the CRC 31st Standard Mathematical >>>>> Tables I landed on page 219, section 3.4.1.2 Graph Invariants. >>>>> >>>>> It would be a vast improvement if there were algorithms >>>>> associated with these invariants. Clearly they exist somewhere. >>>>> >>>>> To "cross the gap" between tables and computational mathematics >>>>> it would be valuable to include implementations of these invariants. >>>>> >>>>> It is hard to walk away from that page. An Axiom implementation >>>>> would be fun to write, especially given the next section that lists >>>>> different kinds of graphs which, presumably, would all have the >>>>> invariants. Even better, the graph algorithms are likely good >>>>> candidates for proof technology (ACL2 if done in Lisp, COQ if >>>>> done in Spad). Lisp has the advantage of an ANSI standard. >>>>> >>>>> It seems worthwhile to take sections like this, expand them >>>>> across computational and proof tools, and publish them in a >>>>> form that is generally useful. It is "nice to know" that a graph >>>>> has a radius but it would be even better if I could "just point and >>>>> click" to import the algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> Axiom has been pushing literate programming for years. The >>>>> tools exist to "make it so", as the saying goes. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Like any research problem it is a struggle to get a useful grip on >>>>>> this. >>>>>> Looking at G&R (I just ordered the latest, mine is 4th edition), the >>>>>> task quickly gets out of hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> The CATS tests in the past were created by reading the printed latex >>>>>> in various volumes and hand-translating them to Axiom input. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not difficult to re-create the latex input for these examples. >>>>>> Doing so and combining the results gives a set of examples with >>>>>> matching input latex and output Axiom. The homework problem is >>>>>> to write the necessary markup and weaver. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is immediately obvious that this is more challenging than it seems. >>>>>> For example, when writing y'(x)=0, Axiom needs y:=operator 'y >>>>>> so it knows about the symbol as an operator. This falls under >>>>>> "Consideration 12: System Specific Commands"... which implies >>>>>> that the latex environment and quoting macros have to be >>>>>> implemented. Sigh. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no such thing as a simple job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, at least there is a way to make a proof of concept >>>>>> prototype that reproduces existing results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re: Howard Cohl. Yes, I'd like an introduction. It seems important to >>>>>>> make DLMF, CRC, and other sources contain enough semantics that >>>>>>> they can be read by a computer algebra system. There are an >>>>>>> enormous number of issues, such as what to do with functions >>>>>>> unknown to the CAS, which need to be thought through. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that NIST/CRC/G&R collections with semantic markup will >>>>>>> have a great normalizing effect on CAS development since it will >>>>>>> raise >>>>>>> cross-platform questions like "What percent of G&R do you handle?". >>>>>>> Albert Rich (RUBI)[0] has been doing this for integration using >>>>>>> patterns. >>>>>>> This can only benefit computational mathematics in the long term. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've also campaigned for associating algorithms with published >>>>>>> tables. >>>>>>> It is important in the long term to have reference versions. The ACM >>>>>>> used to do this years ago. I'd like to see a Gruntz algorithm for >>>>>>> limits >>>>>>> where it can be applied, for instance. It would also provide a focus >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> "missing algorithms" or edge cases. Davenport/Trager/Bronstein >>>>>>> algorithms promise a decision procedure but there are no existing >>>>>>> complete implementations. The tables could highlight missing cases, >>>>>>> giving focus to efforts to complete the procedure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It will also put back-pressure on the tables to define different >>>>>>> versions >>>>>>> of the same formulas based on domains (C, R, etc). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The GR work was more than I had anticipated"... wins the award for >>>>>>> understatement of the decade. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The goal of this effort is to make it possible to read those >>>>>>> formulas directly into a CAS. Axiom is my primary target but >>>>>>> it should be done in a somewhat system agnostic form. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent well over a year creating the computer algebra test suite. >>>>>>> It would be so much easier and more useful if the original sources >>>>>>> could be read directly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read your paper. There is an interesting mix of syntax and >>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess the difference in this effort is that the semantic markup is >>>>>>> intended to be transparent and grounded. The transparent aspect >>>>>>> keeps the tables unchanged in print form. The grounded aspect keeps >>>>>>> the semantics based on some algorithmic base. This implies, of >>>>>>> course, that there IS an algorithmic base which does not yet exist >>>>>>> for some of the work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you can see from the CATS work I've been trying to validate >>>>>>> Axiom's results with respect to published texts. This has found both >>>>>>> Axiom bugs and misprints in published texts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Kamke[1] suite was the first effort for differential equations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Spiegel[2] chapter 14 on indefinite integrals for integration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The von Seggern[3] book on curves and surfaces for graphics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Legendre and Grazini[4] on Pasta by Design for 3D graphics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The RUBI work on integration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and, currently I'm re-creating the numerics that were lost when NAG >>>>>>> released the open source version, leaving me swimming through >>>>>>> Luke's[5] Algorithms book. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> which, to quote a famous phrase "was more than I had anticipated". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your Handbook of Integration[6] has a section on various known >>>>>>> "Caveats, How an integration result may be incorrect". This raises >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> wonderful topic of branch cuts yet again. I did some testing and it >>>>>>> seems that Axiom and Mathematica share one set while Maple and >>>>>>> Maxima share another. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of which leads to a need to create better reference materials >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> are generally available (unlike the ACM algorithms for non-paying >>>>>>> customers) and directly useful for computational mathematics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current plan is to take some tables, find or re-create the latex, >>>>>>> invent a semantic markup, and then write the "weaver". At this point >>>>>>> the research is still at the "proof of concept" stage. (tex formula >>>>>>> sources are most welcome). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ultimately I'd really like to see a book of formulas and algorithms >>>>>>> that I can just drag-and-drop into Axiom and be able to use them >>>>>>> without lifetimes of work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, that 's only the penultimate goal. I have augmented >>>>>>> Axiom to include proofs (ACL2,COQ) so I'd also like to see proofs, >>>>>>> (this IS mathematics, after all) but maybe we'll leave that for >>>>>>> next month :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [0] Rich, Albert "Rule-based Mathematics" >>>>>>> http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/~arich/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] Kamke. E. "Differentialgleichungen Losungsmethoden und Losungen" >>>>>>> Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1959 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [2] Spiegel, Murray R. "Mathematical Handbook", Schaum's Outline >>>>>>> Series; McGraw-Hill Book Company 1968 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [3] von Seggern, David "CRC Standard Curves and Surfaces", >>>>>>> CRC Press, 1993 ISBN 0-8493-0196-3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [4] Legendre, George L. and Grazini, Stefano "Pasta by Design", >>>>>>> Thames and Hudson, 2001 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [5] Luke, Yudell "Algorithms for the Computation of Mathematical >>>>>>> Functions", Academic Press, 1977 ISBN 0-12-459940-6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [6] Zwillinger, Daniel "Handbook of Integration" Jones and Bartlett, >>>>>>> London, 1992 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Dan Zwillinger < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I began reading this topic's emails when they first appeared, and >>>>>>>> then fell behind. >>>>>>>> Sorry for my late comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I admire your efforts. >>>>>>>> They may be somewhat related to what I have done in the past. >>>>>>>> My experience is as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (1) CRC SMTF (Standard Mathematical Tables and Formula) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I put the ~700 integrals in CRC's SMTF into a format from which >>>>>>>> (A) they could be typeset in LaTeX >>>>>>>> (B) they could be converted into Mathematica (which either did a >>>>>>>> symbolic or numeric computation) - and this was done >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I let Richard Fateman use them for his experiments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (2) Elsevier's GR (Gradshteyn and Ryzhik's "Table of Integrals, >>>>>>>> Series, and Products") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I put the ~12,000 (if my memory is correct) integrals into a format >>>>>>>> from which >>>>>>>> (A) they could be beautifully typeset in LaTeX >>>>>>>> (B) they could be converted into Mathematica - and this was NOT done >>>>>>>> Enclosed is a PDF file describing the work and the resulting format. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A different format was used for SMTF and GR. >>>>>>>> While the SMTF work was not too arduous, the GR work was more than >>>>>>>> I had anticipated. >>>>>>>> The input (the previous version of GR) had little syntactic >>>>>>>> structure and it took much effort to get it into shape. >>>>>>>> I used (many different) regular expressions (in perl) to translate >>>>>>>> the bulk of the book, and then lots of hand tuning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While I think you are well beyond my thinking on these topics, >>>>>>>> please let me know if I can help. >>>>>>>> I am friends with Howard Cohl at NIST, who may be the current lead >>>>>>>> for DLMF ("Digital Library of Mathematical Functions" at >>>>>>>> dlmf.nist.gov). >>>>>>>> Let me know if you need an introduction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/20/2016 11:30 PM, Tim Daly wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The game is to define latex markup that is transparent to the syntax >>>>>>>> but adds semantics for post processing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some simple tests show that this works. Suppose selatex.sty >>>>>>>> contains: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> \newcommand{\INT}[1]{#1} >>>>>>>> \newcommand{\VARIABLE}[1]{#1} >>>>>>>> \newcommand{\POLY}[1]{#1} >>>>>>>> \newcommand{\INTEG}[2]{\int{#1}} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This defines 4 new latex markups. The number in the square brackets >>>>>>>> defines the number of expected arguments. The brace argument >>>>>>>> delimites the characters that will occur during expansion with the >>>>>>>> #1 >>>>>>>> replaced by the first argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (As an aside, INT, VARIABLE, and POLY just happen to be valid >>>>>>>> Axiom domain abbreviations, hence the name choice. This choice >>>>>>>> of names gives grounding to the semantics.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Notice that \INTEG takes two arguments but will display only one. >>>>>>>> This allows the variable of integration to be passed in the >>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>> without showing up in the output. This allows the semantics to carry >>>>>>>> additional, non-display information needed by the CAS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some examples follow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An integer 3 can be wrapped as \INT{3} but will still display as 3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A variable x can be wrapped as \VARIABLE{x}, displayed as x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $\POLY{\INT{3}\VARIABLE{x}}$ will display as 3*x >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $\INTEG{\POLY{\INT{3}\VARIABLE{x}~dx}}{x} will be the same result >>>>>>>> as $\int{3x~dx}$, that is, an >>>>>>>> (integralsign) 3x dx >>>>>>>> but notice that the variable of integration is in the semantic >>>>>>>> markup. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These trivial macros can be made less verbose and certainly >>>>>>>> more clever but that's not the point being made here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A 'weaver' program would see the integration expression as >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $\INTEG{\POLY{\INT{3}\VARIABLE{x}~dx}}{x}$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> with all of the semantic tags. The weaver's job is to rewrite this >>>>>>>> expression into an inputform for the CAS. In Axiom that would be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> integrate(3*x,x) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The semantics markup makes the display pretty and the semantic >>>>>>>> parsing possible. Depending on the system, more or less parsing >>>>>>>> markup can exist. Axiom, for example, would not need the \INT or >>>>>>>> \VARIABLE to get a correct parse so the expression could be >>>>>>>> $\INTEG{3x~dx}{x}$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This validates the fundamental idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The next step is to write a simple weaver program. The clever path >>>>>>>> would be to embed a declarative form of the parser syntax (BNF?) >>>>>>>> as comments in selatex.sty. That way the latex semantics and the >>>>>>>> weaver syntax are kept in sync. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Weaver would read the BNF comments from selatex.sty and >>>>>>>> the formula with semantic markup as input and parse the semantic >>>>>>>> markup into inputforms. (Wish I thought of this homework problem >>>>>>>> when I taught the compiler course :-) ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that, depending on the BNF, weaver could be used to >>>>>>>> generate output for Maxima's tree-based representation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An alternative next step is to look at a CRC book, re-create the >>>>>>>> syntactic latex and then create the selatex.sty entries necessary >>>>>>>> to generate weaver input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Infinitesimal progress, but progress non-the-less. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Tim Daly <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One of the Axiom project goals is to develop a "Computer Algebra >>>>>>>>> Test >>>>>>>>> Suite" (CATS). Albert Rich has done this with RUBI and >>>>>>>>> integration. That >>>>>>>>> work is already partially in the test suite and work has been done >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> pattern matching. Large datasets (like Kamke) are always welcome. >>>>>>>>> Some, >>>>>>>>> such as Schaums were hand-developed. This is tedious. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Axiom develops more explanations and documentation it would be >>>>>>>>> useful to execute the formulas directly so there is a local >>>>>>>>> incentive to be >>>>>>>>> clear about semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the long term the hope is that we can just grab formulas >>>>>>>>> directly from >>>>>>>>> their sources (ala literate programming). Your work makes it plain >>>>>>>>> that raw >>>>>>>>> latex does not carry sufficient semantics. There is a global >>>>>>>>> question of >>>>>>>>> how to make this work. Unfortunately a general cross-platform >>>>>>>>> solution >>>>>>>>> is difficult (cite Dewar/Davenport/et al. for OpenMath). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since Axiom is literate and extracting formulas is trivial it >>>>>>>>> seems that >>>>>>>>> literate markup is a natural goal. Since Axiom uses abstract >>>>>>>>> algebra >>>>>>>>> as a scaffold the type tower already has a lot of axiomatic >>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>> The natural join of literate latex and abstract algebra is clearly >>>>>>>>> semantic markup, aka selatex. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>> Consideration 10: semantic->inputform translation (weaver? :-) ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >x and not x has no particular meaning, but if x is explicitly >>>>>>>>> true or false, >>>>>>>>> >Maxima simplifies it to false. If SEALATEX has a semantics -- >>>>>>>>> are you >>>>>>>>> >defining yet another CAS? Or perhaps you should link it 100% to >>>>>>>>> Axiom's >>>>>>>>> >semantics, which you presumably know about and can modify. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am NOT defining another CAS. The goal is a "well-designed hack" >>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>> universally understood latex, a latex package, and a translation >>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The selatex idea is only partially Axiom specific. \INT, for >>>>>>>>> instance, seems >>>>>>>>> pretty generic. However, if the idea is to read formulas and >>>>>>>>> disambiguate >>>>>>>>> a=b (boolean) vs a=b (equation) then the markup needs to be >>>>>>>>> grounded >>>>>>>>> to have meaning. Axiom's domains (BOOLEAN) and (EQ) as the ground >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> \BOOLEAN(a=b) >>>>>>>>> \EQ(a=b) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> are unambiguous relative to each other in Axiom. I don't know >>>>>>>>> enough >>>>>>>>> about Maxima to understand how this might translate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The extracted formulas with the decorated semantics still needs a >>>>>>>>> semantics->inputform (weaver) pre-processor which could be Maxima >>>>>>>>> specific. This would lead to debate about what "equality" means, >>>>>>>>> of course. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Axiom has tried to create a first-order "rosetta stone" to >>>>>>>>> translate between >>>>>>>>> systems (rosetta.pdf [1]) but it is too shallow to consider >>>>>>>>> providing >>>>>>>>> cross-platform semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ============= >>>>>>>>> Consideration 11: \scope in selatex >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >As far as recording stuff in DLMF -- there are presumably scope >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> >("in this chapter n,m are natural numbers....") and maybe even a >>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>> >to make value assignments. >>>>>>>>> >I think you need to model these in SEALATEX too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (See Consideration 6) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Clearly there are scoping issues. My current thinking is to create >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> \scope markup that would manage the environment(s). This is not >>>>>>>>> a new issue (see "Lisp in Small Pieces" [0]) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There seem to be three concerns. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First is the scope name, with something like 'global' as a keyword. >>>>>>>>> Second is the "closure chain" of other scopes. >>>>>>>>> Third is the symbol being scoped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> \scope{name}{chain}{symbol} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The weaver program would walk this chain to create the proper >>>>>>>>> file syntax for system input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ============ >>>>>>>>> Consideration 12: System specific commands \axiom >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Along with the formulas it is clear that some system specific >>>>>>>>> input may be required, such as loading files, clearing workspaces, >>>>>>>>> etc. Some of these may be done in the weaver program, such as >>>>>>>>> between formulas. Others may need to be added to the semantics >>>>>>>>> block. So a markup that provides verbatim quoting per system >>>>>>>>> might be defined, e.g. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> \axiom{)clear all} %clear the workspace >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> which would simply quote an input line. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ============== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that so far all that is being suggested is transparent formula >>>>>>>>> markups which do not impact the presentation, some special tags >>>>>>>>> (\scope, \axiom,...) and a weaver program, along with the ability >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> read the latex and extract named formulas (aka a literate program, >>>>>>>>> which Axiom already can do). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It ought to be possible (by design) to create a semantic version of >>>>>>>>> CRC that any system could import, assuming a "sufficiently clever >>>>>>>>> weaver". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On a more ambitious note, I am trying to find a way to keep the >>>>>>>>> selatex >>>>>>>>> markup "hidden" in a pdf and use it as the clipboard paste when the >>>>>>>>> formula is selected. Anyone with a clue, please help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> =============== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [0] Queinnec, Christopher, "Lisp in Small Pieces" ISBN >>>>>>>>> 978-0521545662 >>>>>>>>> (2003) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] Wester, Michael J. and Daly, TImothy "Rosetta" >>>>>>>>> http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/rosetta.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Richard Fateman < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for all the references :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if I'm going to repeat comments I made already >>>>>>>>>> somewhere. >>>>>>>>>> First, has Dan Zwillinger weighed in? I think that it would be >>>>>>>>>> useful >>>>>>>>>> to see what he has done. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Next, there are ambiguities among CAS and even within a single >>>>>>>>>> CAS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For example, in Macsyma/ Maxima there is generally no semantics >>>>>>>>>> associated with "=" or ">". But in some contexts, there is some >>>>>>>>>> meaning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x>2*y >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is a tree expression. It is not associated with x or with y. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> assume(x>2*y) does mean something ... it puts info in a >>>>>>>>>> database. >>>>>>>>>> Somehow encoding the method to extract this information into >>>>>>>>>> SEALATEX >>>>>>>>>> (SeLaTeX?) in a CAS-independent way -- that's quite a task. In >>>>>>>>>> particular, it would seem to require an understanding of what >>>>>>>>>> assume() >>>>>>>>>> does in Maxima, and what is() does also. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> x and not x has no particular meaning, but if x is explicitly >>>>>>>>>> true or false, >>>>>>>>>> Maxima simplifies it to false. If SEALATEX has a semantics -- >>>>>>>>>> are you >>>>>>>>>> defining yet another CAS? Or perhaps you should link it 100% to >>>>>>>>>> Axiom's >>>>>>>>>> semantics, which you presumably know about and can modify. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as recording stuff in DLMF -- there are presumably scope >>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>> ("in this chapter n,m are natural numbers....") and maybe even a >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> to make value assignments. >>>>>>>>>> I think you need to model these in SEALATEX too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just musing about where you are heading. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RJF >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2016 11:45 AM, Tim Daly wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fateman [0] raised a set of issues with the OpenMath >>>>>>>>>> approach. We are not trying to be cross-platform in this >>>>>>>>>> effort. Axiom does provide an algebraic scaffold so it is >>>>>>>>>> possible that the selatex markup might be useful elsewhere >>>>>>>>>> but that is not a design criterion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fateman[1] also raises some difficult cross-platform issues >>>>>>>>>> that are not part of this design. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fateman[2] shows that parsing tex with only syntactic markup >>>>>>>>>> succeeded on only 43% of 10740 inputs. It ought to be posible >>>>>>>>>> to increase this percentage given proper semantic markup. >>>>>>>>>> (Perhaps there should be a competition similar to the deep >>>>>>>>>> learning groups? PhDs have been awarded on incremental >>>>>>>>>> improvements of the percentage) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a design-by-crawl approach to the semantic markup >>>>>>>>>> idea. The hope is to get something running this week that >>>>>>>>>> 'works' but giving due consideration to global and long-term >>>>>>>>>> issues. A first glance at CRC/NIST raises more questions >>>>>>>>>> than answers as is usual with any research. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It IS a design goal to support a Computer Algebra Test Suite >>>>>>>>>> (http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/CATS). It is very >>>>>>>>>> tedious to hand construct test suites. It will be even more >>>>>>>>>> tedious to construct them "second-level" by doing semantic >>>>>>>>>> markup and then trying to use them as input, but the hope is >>>>>>>>>> that eventually the CRC/NIST/G&R, etc will eventually be >>>>>>>>>> published with semantics so computational mathematics can >>>>>>>>>> stop working from syntax. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 4: I/O transparency >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Assume for the moment that we take a latex file containing >>>>>>>>>> only formulas. We would like to be able to read this file so >>>>>>>>>> it has computational mathematics (CM) semantics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is clear that there needs to be semantic tags that carry the >>>>>>>>>> information but these tags have to be carefully designed NOT >>>>>>>>>> to change the syntactic display. They may, as noted before, >>>>>>>>>> require multiple semantic versions for a single syntax. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is also clear that we would like to be able to output formulas >>>>>>>>>> with CM semantics where currently we only output syntax. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 5: I/O isomorphism >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An important property of selatex is an isomorphism with >>>>>>>>>> input/output. Axiom allows output forms to be defined for a >>>>>>>>>> variety of targets so this does not seem to be a problem. For >>>>>>>>>> input, however, this means that the reader has to know how >>>>>>>>>> to expand \INT{3} into the correct domain. This could be done >>>>>>>>>> with a stand-alone pre-processor from selatex->inputform. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It should be possible to read-then-write an selatex formula, >>>>>>>>>> or write-then-read an selatex formula with identical semantics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That might not mean that the I/O is identical though due to >>>>>>>>>> things like variable ordering, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 6: Latex semantic macros >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Semantic markup would be greatly simplified if selatex provided >>>>>>>>>> a mechanism similar to Axiom's ability to define types "on the >>>>>>>>>> fly" >>>>>>>>>> using either assignment >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> TYP:=FRAC(POLY(INT)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or macro form >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> TYP ==> FRAC(POLY(INT)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Latex is capable of doing this and selatex should probably include >>>>>>>>>> a set of pre-defined common markups, such as >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> \FRINT ==> \FRAC\INT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 7: selatex \begin{semantic} environment? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Currently Axiom provides a 'chunk' environment which surrounds >>>>>>>>>> source code. The chunks are named so they can be extracted >>>>>>>>>> individually or in groups >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> \begin{chunk}{a name for the chunk} >>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>> \end{chunk} >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We could provide a similar environment for semantics such as >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> \begin{semantics}{a name for the block} >>>>>>>>>> \end{semantics} >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> which would provide a way to encapsulate markup and also allow >>>>>>>>>> a particular block to be extracted in literate programming style. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 8: Latex-time processing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Axiom currently creates specific files using \write to create >>>>>>>>>> intermediate files (e.g. for tables). This technique can be used >>>>>>>>>> to enhance latex-time debugging (where did it fail?). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It can be used to create Axiom files which pre-construct domains >>>>>>>>>> needed when the input file with semantic markup is read. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This would help a stand-alone selatex->inputform preprocessor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>> Consideration 9: Design sketches >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is all well-and-good to hand-wave at this idea but a large >>>>>>>>>> amount of this machinery already exists. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would seem useful to develop an incremental test suite that >>>>>>>>>> starts with "primitive" domains (e.g. INT), creating selatex I/O. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Once these are in place we could work on "type tower" markup >>>>>>>>>> such as \FRAC\INT or \POLY\COMPLEX\FLOAT. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Following that might be pre-existing latex functions like \int, >>>>>>>>>> \sum, >>>>>>>>>> \cos, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To validate these ideas Axiom will include an selatex.sty file and >>>>>>>>>> some unit tests files on primitive domain markup. That should be >>>>>>>>>> enough to start the bikeshed discussions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ideas? Considerations? Suggestions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [0] Fateman, Richard J. >>>>>>>>>> "A Critique of OpenMath and Thoughts on >>>>>>>>>> Encoding Mathematics, January, 2001" >>>>>>>>>> https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/openmathcrit.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] Fateman, Richard J. >>>>>>>>>> "Verbs, Nouns, and Computer Algebra, or What's Grammar Got to >>>>>>>>>> do with Math? ", December 18, 2008 >>>>>>>>>> https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/nounverbmac.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [2] Fateman, Richard J. >>>>>>>>>> "Parsing TeX into Mathematics", >>>>>>>>>> https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/parsing_tex.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
