[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- To: Hans Aberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:55:41 +0000 (GMT)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Length: 1121
Hans Aberg wrote --
> One way to extrapolate a general rule form the empiricism in use is the
> rule I gave, and different people seem to arrive at the same or similar
But an empicist approach, and Occam's razor, I think would then
suggest to you that Bethold's extrapolation (which is not entirely
empirical) is superior.
> It is not possible to say that this is so or not, because the traditional
> usage is wholly empirical.
> The traditional typographical explanation, or rule, that names such as
> "sin", "cos" should be typeset upright is that these are functions. But
> this does not explain why the "f" in f(x) should be typeset as a variable,
> when it clearly is a function. One also needs to change the rule so that it
> becomes useful in modern mathematics, which does not circulate around
> functions in the same way it did the last century.
No rules, please (at least not generated in this forum).
> But if one wants to have a general rule, this is one might use.
One rule is a s good as another to a drowning ISO committee but, as
you suggest, not useful for mathematics.