On Thu, September 25, 2008 8:45 am, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Le 22-sept.-08 à 10:05, Professor James Davenport a écrit : >>>> - I have rephrased "takes no argument" to "cannot be applied" >>> Certainly an improvement. >> What we really mean is that it is a constant, rather than an operator. > to me that is the same meaning Exactly. What I was trying to do is get to the point-of-view of the average mathematician, say a K-14 reader/writer, who does not view (the point of the paragraph below) constants as nullary operators, and therefore not only does not need to be told that zero cannot be applied, but would actually be confused if he were. I notice that my copy of the CDs has <role>constant</role> on zero, and wonder whether that isn't a better way. >> Of course, Universal Algebra regards constants as nullary >> operators, which is >> probably where the confused wording came from. >> Actually, I don't think we need any words here: just delete the >> sentence, >> so that (both_sides, for example) reads "This symbol is used ... both >> sides." > > Doesn't it help clarity to make sure that no-one uses it applied > anywhere? > I thought so.
James Davenport Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199 Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
