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 f4QIdbf22921 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:37 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4QIda723621 . for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:36 +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 f4QIdZU28240 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:35 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E613.37203A80" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10824 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:35 +0200 (MEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4QIdZU28236 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.29655FA4@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:37:36 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 497080 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:31 +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 UAA02712 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:30 +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 UAA102250 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:31 +0200 Received: from mail.umu.se (custer.umdac.umu.se [130.239.8.14]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4QIdU106064 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.239.137.13] (mariehemsv093.sn.umu.se [130.239.137.13]) by mail.umu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21545 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:39:30 +0200 (MET DST) In-Reply-To: <200105251810.NAA04772@riemann.math.twsu.edu> References: Return-Path: X-Sender: lars@abel.math.umu.se x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id UAA02713 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2 Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:39:29 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Hellstr=F6m?= 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: 4107 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E613.37203A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 06.05 +0200 2001-05-25, Phil Parker wrote: >On 05/21/2001 at 11:20 PM, Lars Hellstr=F6m = >wrote: > >>At least about this aspect of it we can do something. The guidance = given >>by LaTeX manuals and the like on what is sensible and what is not is, = in >>this area, rather important. >> >It may be important to LaTeX designers, but it is totally irrelevant to >working mathematicians, who will use whatever symbols they deem >appropriate with no deference to anyone else's notions of propriety. I my experience, people don't always have that clear ideas about what notation to use (at least when it comes to new notation---old notation = is another matter); often the ideas aren't any clearer than "something triangular". In _those_ cases, which are what I was thinking of when I wrote the above, most people start looking through the tables in "A not = so short introduction to LaTeX" (or whatever they use as first reference) = to see if they find something fitting the description. >Collaborations have been known to spend more time arguing about = notation >than proving theorems. I haven't seen that myself, but I believe you. >As for examples, they exist -- I've seen more than one. If you haven't, >and don't want to take anyone's word for their existence, then it is >entirely appropriate that you spend the time and effort looking for = them. Do you realize that you are advocating "proof by authority" (or worse: "proof by claim", the academic cousin of "guilty by suspicion") here?! = The normal practice in a scientific debate is that if anyone makes a claim = and someone else requests the proof for that claim then these proofs should = be produced (or the claim withdrawn) by the one who made the claim, not = vice versa. Lars Hellstr=F6m ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E613.37203A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2

At 06.05 +0200 2001-05-25, Phil Parker wrote:
>On 05/21/2001 at 11:20 PM, Lars Hellstr=F6m = <Lars.Hellstrom@MATH.UMU.SE>
>wrote:
>
>>At least about this aspect of it we can do = something. The guidance given
>>by LaTeX manuals and the like on what is = sensible and what is not is, in
>>this area, rather important.
>>
>It may be important to LaTeX designers, but it is = totally irrelevant to
>working mathematicians, who will use whatever = symbols they deem
>appropriate with no deference to anyone else's = notions of propriety.

I my experience, people don't always have that clear = ideas about what
notation to use (at least when it comes to new = notation---old notation is
another matter); often the ideas aren't any clearer = than "something
triangular". In _those_ cases, which are what I = was thinking of when I
wrote the above, most people start looking through = the tables in "A not so
short introduction to LaTeX" (or whatever they = use as first reference) to
see if they find something fitting the = description.

>Collaborations have been known to spend more time = arguing about notation
>than proving theorems.

I haven't seen that myself, but I believe you.

>As for examples, they exist -- I've seen more than = one. If you haven't,
>and don't want to take anyone's word for their = existence, then it is
>entirely appropriate that you spend the time and = effort looking for them.

Do you realize that you are advocating "proof by = authority" (or worse:
"proof by claim", the academic cousin of = "guilty by suspicion") here?! The
normal practice in a scientific debate is that if = anyone makes a claim and
someone else requests the proof for that claim then = these proofs should be
produced (or the claim withdrawn) by the one who made = the claim, not vice
versa.

Lars Hellstr=F6m

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E613.37203A80--