On 4/14/2014 11:30 AM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I can change things but will only do that when all you mathematicians
have some agreement about it ...
Otared points out that the distinction between \triangle and
\bigtriangleup comes from plain TeX. plain.tex has these definitions:
\mathchardef\triangle="0234
\mathchardef\bigtriangleup="2234
So \triangle is a math ord and \bigtriangleup a math bin.
For compatibility, that should probably stay true in ConTeXt too---even
the low placement of \bigtriangledown, which I don't understand but
which does reproduce plain TeX's placement.
why? if compatibility means 'not useable' we should fix it
Btw, it is still on my agenda to provide a mechanism for switching
between math dictionaries (i.e. group symbols in group switch if needed
different properties) so that one can switch between logic,
statistics, streetfighting or whatever math.
Hm, like different dialects of a language. Plain TeX definitely speaks
a pure-mathematician dialect. It would be interesting to see what
symbol groups are useful in other dialects.
http://www.openmath.org/cdindex.html
it would be interesting to come up with a reasonable list of math languages
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
