Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f4L9x0f25393 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:59:00 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4L9x0727159 . for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:59:00 +0200 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L9wxU18230 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:59 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1DC.A85B8A00" Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20624 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L9ww016487 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:58 +0200 (MET DST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.A09B984A@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:57:09 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 496353 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:53 +0200 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08732 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA107896 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:49 +0200 Received: from musse.tninet.se (musse.tninet.se [195.100.94.12]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4L9wmj10981 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 1978 invoked from network); 21 May 2001 11:58:37 +0200 Received: from garibaldi.tninet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.94.103) by musse.tninet.se with SMTP; 21 May 2001 11:58:37 +0200 Received: from [195.100.226.144] (du144-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.144]) by garibaldi.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.2) with ESMTP id 431900.439115.990garibaldi-s0 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200105210723.JAA26266@mozart.ujf-grenoble.Fr> References: <200105161742.MAA02503@riemann.math.twsu.edu> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:32:08 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Hans Aberg" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4094 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1DC.A85B8A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 09:23 +0200 2001/05/21, Thierry Bouche wrote: >Honestly, when i read maths with a \varphi next to a \phi, i >never know whether it's keying error or semantic subtility. But these papers, do they not have a definition somewhere telling what mathematical quantities they denote? I think it would be difficult to have any of those rather different variations side by side in a math paper and they denote the same mathematical quantity. > The >problem being that any available glyph in a standard font set will be >used by mathematicians... On the other hand, pi and varpi should >cohabit, but maybe with a more semantic name (pi/doricpi?). This is the key to the problem: How mathematicians use it. When I read a math paper, I try to figure out what mathematical = quantities the different glyphs represent and then I focus on those mathematical quantities when I read the paper, and not the glyphs themselves. There are some corny practises out the for sure, and sometimes it can be difficult to read a style that one is not used to: But I have never heard a mathematician wanting to impose restrictions in order to provide better styles: Often the style is dictated by the = problem of expressing the mathematical structure, so it would be unfortunate to have to cope with restrictions that may conflict with that directive. By contrast, in computer language programming, it is quite common trying = to impose such restrictions. But that would not work in math. > Making it hard for authors to use in a same paper >two versions of epsilon or phi is a good thing for the >readers. Allowing them to choose which shape they prefer is no >problem, especially if the publisher can override this with his >styles. So I totally disagree here: Because of what you said yourself, the = manner in which mathematicians may use these glyphs, this would not be prudent. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1DC.A85B8A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2

At 09:23 +0200 2001/05/21, Thierry Bouche = wrote:
>Honestly, when i read maths with a \varphi next = to a  \phi, i
>never know whether it's keying error or semantic = subtility.

But these papers, do they not have a definition = somewhere telling what
mathematical quantities they denote?

I think it would be difficult to have any of those = rather different
variations side by side in a math paper and they = denote the same
mathematical quantity.

> The
>problem being that any available glyph in a = standard font set will be
>used by mathematicians... On the other hand, pi = and varpi should
>cohabit, but maybe with a more semantic name = (pi/doricpi?).

This is the key to the problem: How mathematicians use = it.

When I read a math paper, I try to figure out what = mathematical quantities
the different glyphs represent and then I focus on = those mathematical
quantities when I read the paper, and not the glyphs = themselves.

There are some corny practises out the for sure, and = sometimes it can be
difficult to read a style that one is not used = to:

But I have never heard a mathematician wanting to = impose restrictions in
order to provide better styles: Often the style is = dictated by the problem
of expressing the mathematical structure, so it would = be unfortunate to
have to cope with restrictions that may conflict with = that directive.

By contrast, in computer language programming, it is = quite common trying to
impose such restrictions. But that would not work in = math.

> Making it hard for authors to use in a same = paper
>two versions of epsilon or phi is a good thing = for the
>readers. Allowing them to choose which shape they = prefer is no
>problem, especially if the publisher can override = this with his
>styles.

So I totally disagree here: Because of what you said = yourself, the manner
in which mathematicians may use these glyphs, this = would not be prudent.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E1DC.A85B8A00--