On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT), "'Alexander van der Vekens' via Metamath" <[email protected]> wrote: > While I am working on theorems for matrices and polynomials, I have > increasing problems to find adequate class variables to formulate the > theorems appropriately. The available capital letters seem to be not > sufficient anymore. Therefore I would like to propose to add additional > class variables to set.mm.
Adding new class variables seems reasonable enough, we've done it before. The last time we did it I think it made many things clearer. > Furthermore, I vacilate between using lower case or capital letters ( .a. > versus .A. ) - lower case letters suggest that the represented classes > should be sets, but capital letters make clear that these are variables for > classes. I think we all agree that we should strive for clear notation. I worry that the lower-case letters might be misunderstood as set variables. So I would think that capital letters would be better, since these are new symbols for class variables. But I'd be curious what others say. More importantly: How would these *display* as in HTML and LaTeX? Is the idea that these would have dotted underlines like .+ ? In that case, I suspect that the new variables won't be obviously distinct enough from other class variables. Other options include solid underscores, double-underline, and boxes, and I suspect there are many others. I think adding new class variables is probably a good idea, I just want them clearly distinct from set variables & other symbols. --- David A. Wheeler -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/E1iLr5B-0007rL-7s%40rmmprod07.runbox.
