Professor James Davenport wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>> Making them n-ary doesn't solve the classical writing of
>> a < b > c
>> which is used quite often still.
> Is it? Oh my God ....
I agree; that's scary!
OTOH, it is quite common to string different,
but "consistent", relations together:
a = b > c = d >= e >> f
Sometimes the consistency is dubious:
a = b
approx c
approx d
(where the approx is indicating that the rhs has
been somehow approximated, expanded or whatever).
I've seen cases where it seemed that the d
was more likely an approximation of a than c!
And then there's the occasional
a > b,c > d
which _sometimes_ means:
(a > b) & (a > c) & (b > d) & (c > d)
rather than just
(a > b) & (c > d)
> I assume one can therefore say a < b > c < d > e ...
> (where e is not necessarily the base of the natural logarithms)
>> So another workaround is neither whatsoever and I think it should be at the
>> notations' level.
> Hear here.
Indeed; while I do think it is appealing to be able to
preserve this notational structure, nary relations
only scratch the surface. Short of a contrived
multi-relation construct, this situation would
seem to be best solved (at a MML level) by
a <semantics> pairing of the desired notation
and the underlying logic, probably using sharing/id/ref.
> James
> _______________________________________________
> Om3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
_______________________________________________
Om3 mailing list
[email protected]
http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
