On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Stan Devitt wrote: > I probably did not say quite what I mean. Of course the branch cuts > matter, and the actual definition needs to be precise and fairly > standard. No problem - it'shard to cover all the bases. > However, from an authoring point of view, we should comfortable using > that "default" right up to the point that, for example, we needed to > talk about the differences between two different definitions, in which > case for precision, I would need to provide a link to a definition of > the non-standard one. Of course, for, say, arctan, there are an infinity of possible "oterh definitions", which is the problem. > As for the level of description in the summary, it needs to specify at a > minimum. > > 1) a clear indication to which definition is being used (probably by > reference to the liturature. > 2) a description that is accessible to the casual mathematician. Agreed. But what I am saying is that it is impossible to do both in the one description. Of course, we don't NEED two items, we could say, for example, instead of my proposed <overview> The arctan function is the inverse of the tan function </overview> <detail> As defined in A+S and ISO/IEC10967. The specification (and therefore branch cuts) in terms of log are given in the CMPs/FMPs </detail>
<Description> The arctan function is the inverse of the tan function. More precisely, it is as defined in A+S and ISO/IEC10967. The specification (and therefore branch cuts) in terms of log are given in the CMPs/FMPs. </Description> James _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
