Chris,since OpenMath offers the freedom of defining a new notation "easily" it has been a common choice to offer that extra symbol to match any given new notation.
The whole infrastructure of formal properties in content-dictionaries is in principle supportive for this: it can enable processors to read CDs and deal with such new symbol. But experimental evidence of such is lacking (probably as complexity can be daunting).
So a candid answer could be "just define a new symbol", e.g. an n-ary equality symbol.
In practice, however, the long-term maintenance of CDs is rather a more difficult work (trying to not break compatibility).
paul Le 29-sept.-08 à 00:47, Chris Rowley a écrit :
As with many parts of mathematics, exactly what is written with non-text symbols and what is written using natural language (or various mixtures, of course) is very arbitrary. It varies from (mathematical) culture to culture and over time. Also, the range of symbols and constructions available varies. Jan's 'problem' is that he has to 'deal with' any notation that comes from a particular culture right now; but (and this is the real strangeness) he is not expected to 'deal with' the many ideas (expressable as OpenMath symbols, operators etc.) from that same culture that are always expressed purely in natural language, no symbols needed (used). That this distinction is unnautural is well illustrated by the fact that spoken maths does not make any distinction (almost:-) between the two classes.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
