[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*Hans Aberg <haberg@matematik.su.se>***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**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*- 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 > rule. 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. chris

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Next by Date:
**Re: (hooks) MathML arrow fonts** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Next by thread:
**Re: Binary Relations, draft 1** - Index(es):