-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 AM To: Stan Devitt Cc: Paul Libbrecht; [email protected]; Math Working Group WG Subject: Re: [Om3] target K14 for reading content-math spec any realistic? ... > > The default definitions remain usable right up to the point where the > differences between the defaults and your useage interfere with or > become the focus of the mathematical point you are trying to present. > For example, in most K-14 mathematical discussions around > trigonometric functions, the exact choice of branch cuts, etc. doesn't matter. Um - I think I disgaree here. SOME, yes, but the moment you ask for the cube root of -1 it does start mattering.
James, I probably did not say quite what I mean. Of course the branch cuts matter, and the actual definition needs to be precise and fairly standard. However, from an authoring point of view, we should comfortable using that "default" right up to the point that, for example, we needed to talk about the differences between two different definitions, in which case for precision, I would need to provide a link to a definition of the non-standard one. As for the level of description in the summary, it needs to specify at a minimum. 1) a clear indication to which definition is being used (probably by reference to the liturature. 2) a description that is accessible to the casual mathematician. As soon as the summary tries to cover too many of the details it starts to fail on 2), and that is what I was trying to get at. Stan _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
