Lars Hellström wrote: > Bruce Miller skrev: >> ... Perhaps <OMR> would be useful here? > > Not really.
Of course it doesn't solve the whole problem by itself, but may provide hints for cooperative processors. >> My main point being, if one _were_ to define >> such a symbol, it would seem that more than one >> "Multi<something>" would be called for. > > No, this one suffices fine. One could certainly invent specialisations > of it, which were guaranteed to always imply a relation between the > extremes provided the construction as a whole fits some syntactic > pattern, but that's a bit like asking for a language in which you may > only express truths. The necessary theorems that a specific sequence of > relations combine to some relation between the extremes can equally well > be applied to the basic "multistep" as to a specialisation thereof. It seems there's at least a different intent. In the case of "a<b=c" the "=" simply asserts equality and the whole thing is really a shorthand for the conjunction. Perhaps this is a "multirelation" ? To the extent that your multistep example conveys more than the conjunction does, that excess is different than the case above; "step" doesn't really apply above. Perhaps even your use of "=" is different. > Lars Hellström -- [email protected] http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/ _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
