Yes, indeed. I didn't even think of the interpretation as a^{b c}
because in fact c were integers in my examples, so it didn't attract
much attention when rendered, but it's definitively not to distinguish
when c is literal. I have to review my workaround.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Kurt
Am 11.07.2012 19:48, schrieb William Sit:
> In TeX, a^bc would be interpreted mathematically as (a^b)c, whereas
> a^{bc} would be interpreted as a^{b c}, where the exponent is a product
> of b and c, or an application of b on c. Neither interpretation is what
> is intended if bc is a single identifier.
>
> One would need something like a^{\rm bc}, but even that is possibly
> ambiguous; but some change in font is needed.
>
> William
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:48:10 +0200
> kp <k...@scios.ch> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> by accident I noticed the following irregularity in the TeX output
>> (missing {}):
>>
>> a**bc (or a^bc).
>>
>> Axiom:
>> $$
>> a^bc
>> \leqno(4)
>> $$
>>
>> OpenAxiom, Fricas:
>> $$
>> a \sp bc
>> \leqno(6)
>> $$
>>
>> Usually, one uses only one character variables :)
>> I'm using Axiom mostly via Python (TeXmacs, IPython) so that
>> re.sub(r"\\sp ([^ \t\r\n\f\v\\]*)", r"^{\1}", tex)
>> is a workaround for the moment.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Kurt
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Axiom-developer mailing list
>> Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
>
> William Sit, Professor Emeritus
> Mathematics, City College of New York
> Office: R6/291D Tel: 212-650-5179
> Home Page: http://scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~wyscc/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
