On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Bruce Miller wrote: > 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! Indeed so, and therefore it is ahrd to give SEMANTICS to these. > <snip> And then there's the occasional > > 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. > Indeed so, or some other notational method to be invented, but it's a NOTATION, not SEMANTICS.
Michael: I fear you're out-numbered. James _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
