From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 31 2003 - 06:28:12 EST
From: "Mirek" <midge@wp.pl>
> No, they cannot be glyph variants. There is very big different in usage.
> Those A,E shapes are _linear_ in form, the V-like symbols ARE NOT. The
> condition after A,E symbol is written AFTER the symbols and in the V
> standard the condition is usually written _UNDER_ the symbol.
I forgot this notation too, which looks like combining circumflex and caron
above the quantified variable... Don't we already have a complete set
mathematical combining angles?
If you mean the notation used to note "such that" condition qualifying the
quantifier, a common notation is to use a normal unqualified quantifier, and
use an "imply" operator within the quantified expression between the
condition and the assertion. but if you really want to use a condition below
the quantifier, the way you note the quatifier itself is not related to the
notation of the condition (you could as well use the standard reversed-A/E
glyphs before the quantified variable and write the condition below it, as
an interlinear notation).
Do we need special codes then to represent the quantifier with a condition
below, given that we already have the alternate angle diacritics above, and
the common A-E-shaped separated glyphs and the alternate V-shaped separated
glyphs, and interlinear format controls for notations below the baseline?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 07:05:22 EST