On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:19:44AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>One of the first pages that I looked at was
[[Wikipedia:How does one
>edit a page]]. [...] Now, if I hadn't known TeX already, I wouldn't have
>been heartened to see a reference to it. What do you propose to write
>there?
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$]", because that won't
work.
Since when is "x% = x/100" a common variable name? That's the only thing I
talked about in my short explanation.
And you'd better not write "the right
[[coset]] [$H\G$]".
Doing group theory is not what I would call "doing only a little
mathematics". The pages on group theory will probably contain more LaTeX
anyway.
And woe to the person that tries to say "the set
[${a,b,c}$]".
Again, this is only a logical thought if you already suspect that there is
more between [$ and $] then just variable names.
Apart from that
there would be another section containing more
explanation for writing complex math with [$ .. $] 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.
Were in my little explanation did I use the word LaTeX?
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- Jan Hidders