From: Hans Aberg <haberg-1_at_telia.com>

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:38:07 +0200

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:38:07 +0200

On 12 Jul 2012, at 16:06, Julian Bradfield wrote:

*> On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg <haberg-1_at_telia.com> wrote:
*

*>> On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
*

*>>> In practice, no working mathematician is going to use the mathematical
*

*>>> alphanumerical symbols to write maths in (La)TeX, because it's
*

*> ..
*

*>>> the Unicode mathematical symbol model does not match how one uses
*

*>>> mathematical symbols.
*

*>>
*

*>> It is used by proof assistants such as Isabelle, and also in logic.
*

*>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_(proof_assistant)
*

*>
*

*> No it isn't.
*

Yes, I posted before here some example of people using it.

*> Isabelle uses (essentially) TeX control sequences
*

*> internally, though it writes them as \<oplus> rather than \oplus .
*

*> A small number of these are mapped to Unicode code points for display
*

*> and input purposes, and that small number does not include any of the
*

*> mathematical alphanumerical symbols block.
*

Latest version requires STIXFonts to be installed. Some other proof assistants use it.

*>> If your only objective is to achieve a rendering for humans to read, TeX is fine, but not if one wants to communicate semantic information on the computer level.
*

*>
*

*> On the contrary, computers are very happy with TeX notation. There are
*

*> several useful mathematical online learning sites (such as, for
*

*> example, Alcumus) which use TeX syntax to interact with the students.
*

TeX formulas are just for rendering. For example, if you want to have superscript to the left, you have to write ${}^x y$.

Hans

Received on Thu Jul 12 2012 - 11:42:00 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Thu Jul 12 2012 - 11:42:01 CDT
*