Jan Hidders wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>That mathematical variables are preferrably
enclosed in [$ and $] and that
>>if you want to use sub- and superscript in them you can write [$x_n$] and
>>[$c^2$].
>And that you'd better not write "[$x% =
x/100$]", because that won't work.
Since when is "x% = x/100" a common variable
name? That's the only thing I
talked about in my short explanation.
Ah, now it is me that is not understanding you.
You intend to render [$...$] by calling LaTeX
(possibly using a script to render simple things in other ways,
but still ultimately to make LaTeX the arbiter of meaning), right?
But now should I understand that you won't normally use it
in an expression like [$x^2y = z_1$]; you'd write [$x^2$][$y$] = [$z_1$],
and save the full power of LaTeX for the fancy stuff?
That would keep people from trying [$x% = x/100$], mostly.
>And you'd better not write "the right
[[coset]] [$H\G$]".
Doing group theory is not what I would call "doing
only a little
mathematics". The pages on group theory will probably contain more LaTeX
anyway.
The current [[Factor group]] (there is no [[Coset]])
would barely improve with LaTeX.
>>Apart from that there would be another section
containing more
>>explanation for writing complex math with [$ .. $] and [$$ .. $$]. This
>>would probably be the same as what you would write for [[math: ..]]. We
>>cannot get around mentioning LaTeX somewhere.
>Well, that's just it.
>We must mention LaTeX to make [$c^2$] work your way.
Where in my little explanation did I use the word
LaTeX?
If [$...$] calls LaTeX, then I hope that you mention it ''somewhere''.
I understand that you don't have to mention it at the ''beginning''.
>But we don't need to mention it for other
solutions.
If you propose [[math: ... ]] then we also cannot
explain what it does
without mentioning LaTeX.
I already agreed that [[math:...]] is essentially the same as [$...$],
if both call LaTeX; it's $$...$$ as <var>...</var> that doesn't need
this,
because it ''doesn't'' call LaTeX.
>But I agree that having 2 systems of notation is
problematic.
>I just find it even *more* problematic to have 1 system of notation
>that will mystify anybody that tries to use a percent symbol or a brace.
Of course, but if you introduce LaTeX something like
that is going to happen
anyway. Please keep in mind that all the time I have been arguing that *if*
we introduce a mark-up for LaTeX *then* it's better to have one mark-up for
variables and expressions. That doesn't say anything about what we should do
if we don't introduce LaTeX, but I suspect you already know what my position
then will be.
I also am speaking about ''if'' we introduce a markup for LaTeX;
but my argument is that it shouldn't make simple things any harder,
or introduce surprises into simple things (like weird behavior for "%").
>That's not what I meant; what's relevant to
me is the argument against
><var>. If that's really not right, then it could put a new perspective on
>*my* view of the matter, even if it doesn't affect *yours*.
I don't have an argument against <var> per
se. I have argued that (1) if we
already have ''' and <i> I don't think the added complexity of
<var> is
justified and (2) if we already have mark-up for LaTeX then we could also
use that for variable name, so then we also don't need <var>. Since we
already exchanged our arguments on (1) and no more new points were raised, I
don't see any point in continuing that discussion.
I remember these, and I agree that there's no point in rehashing them.
It's the comment that <var> was never intended for mathematical variables
that caught my eye. I'd like to hear more about that, if you want,
either here or elsewhere. But we can continue the main discussion meanwhile.
>But since you and I are the only people discussing
this now, and I'm
>standing in opposition to you, still you should care about that.
Oh, but I do. It's just that I have a busy day time
job (that tends to flow
over into my weekends) where I have to write articles with dead-lines and
teach classes at university the next day. So I like to keep my discussions
short and to the point so there is also some time left to also actually add
something to Wikipedia.
I'm mostly staying away from the discussion of tables for this reason ^_^.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>