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 f4QKuMf23183 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:22 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4QKuL724073 . for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:21 +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 f4QKuKU02553 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:20 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E626.51AFDF00" 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 WAA27133 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:20 +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 f4QKuJU02549 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:19 +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 <0.43A5FBA7@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:54:20 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 497108 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:16 +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 WAA03627 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:15 +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 WAA95204 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:15 +0200 Received: from algonet.se (garibaldi.tninet.se [195.100.94.103]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4QKuF114544 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.100.226.133] (du133-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.133]) by garibaldi.tninet.se (BLUETAIL Mail Robustifier 2.2.2) with ESMTP id 972628.910571.990garibaldi-s1 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:56:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <200105251810.NAA04772@riemann.math.twsu.edu> Return-Path: X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id WAA03628 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2 Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:42:48 +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: 4108 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E626.51AFDF00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 20:39 +0200 2001/05/26, Lars Hellstr=F6m wrote: >>working mathematicians ... 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. There are many principles at play here: One is to use what oneself and other people already use or have used in the past. If one for some reason needs a new glyph, LaTeX character principles are not of much authority I am afraid: The most natural is to skim through = all sorts of glyphs, and perhaps design a new one if no suitable can be = found. >>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. If there was a mathematical theorem that we were trying to prove, then = you would be right: Those that want two glyphs different should prove that there has been a manuscript where they are used side by side with = different semantic meanings, and those that want them to be the same should prove that they never have appeared in a manuscript side by side, or have been used exchangeably in the same manuscript denoting the same mathematical semantic quantity. The proof of either claim will consist of a complete search of all = existing literature, taking into account the fact that the test may come up inconclusively in view that the practise between authors may be inconsistent, and the fact that the glyphs may have never appeared side = by side in the same manuscript, and other such complications. But here we discuss the natural principles of human behavior: It is a = known principle in math authoring that one can take any glyphs looking sufficiently distinct and the author is free to assign them the mathematical semantics she deems right for the scientific context. In the case of Unicode, the search-existing-literature which in = principle defines what should be in Unicode did not prove practical with respect = to math. So one has instead settled for the principle how mathematicians = may use the glyphs, which is more sensible from the practical point of view. I do not see why a successor to TeX/LaTeX which anyway is based on = Unicode+ should meddle with this. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E626.51AFDF00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2

At 20:39 +0200 2001/05/26, Lars Hellstr=F6m = wrote:
>>working mathematicians ... 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.

There are many principles at play here: One is to use = what oneself and
other people already use or have used in the = past.

If one for some reason needs a new glyph, LaTeX = character principles are
not of much authority I am afraid: The most natural = is to skim through all
sorts of glyphs, and perhaps design a new one if no = suitable can be found.

>>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.

If there was a mathematical theorem that we were = trying to prove, then you
would be right: Those that want two glyphs different = should prove that
there has been a manuscript where they are used side = by side with different
semantic meanings, and those that want them to be the = same should prove
that they never have appeared in a manuscript side by = side, or have been
used exchangeably in the same manuscript denoting the = same mathematical
semantic quantity.

The proof of either claim will consist of a complete = search of all existing
literature, taking into account the fact that the = test may come up
inconclusively in view that the practise between = authors may be
inconsistent, and the fact that the glyphs may have = never appeared side by
side in the same manuscript, and other such = complications.

But here we discuss the natural principles of human = behavior: It is a known
principle in math authoring that one can take any = glyphs looking
sufficiently distinct and the author is free to = assign them the
mathematical semantics she deems right for the = scientific context.

In the case of Unicode, the search-existing-literature = which in principle
defines what should be in Unicode did not prove = practical with respect to
math. So one has instead settled for the principle = how mathematicians may
use the glyphs, which is more sensible from the = practical point of view.

I do not see why a successor to TeX/LaTeX which anyway = is based on Unicode+
should meddle with this.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E626.51AFDF00--