From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2006 - 12:46:21 CST
On 13 Nov 2006, at 16:38, Adam Twardoch wrote:
>> For more complex math, one needs something corresponding to a
>> macro system; perhaps some lambda calculus may be used here, as a
>> macro system quickly becomes rather crippling. In addition, I
>> think an analysis of the math (human, natural) language is needed,
>> to one can have develop a semantically correct syntax. I do not
>> pretend this will come easy. :-)
> ...I’m sure you mean "math (human, natural) language*s*". I believe
> an analysis of just one language (for example, only Russian, or
> only Farsi, or only English etc.) will not be greatly helpful.
Sorry, I meant: analysis of written math as though it is a human,
natural language.
For example, if one wants to have superscripts to the left, one has
to write ${}^ba$, which is semantically incorrect, as then the $b$
will be a superscript of nothing, and further, if say the
typographical position of $b$ should be adjusted relative to what it
superscripts, this cannot be done. One can give more examples. I run
across these examples naturally, because, when reality does not
prevent me, I write on a thoerem prover. It then parses the math, and
after the parse, one choose a printout based on the true semantic input.
Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 13 2006 - 12:47:52 CST