On Thu, September 25, 2008 9:47 am, David Carlisle wrote: > > >> I personally would like there to be a unary integration, as the inverse >> of >> unary differentiation, and would find it hard to argue for the existence >> of one and not the other. > > I'm confused by this thread. I tried to trace it back but I couldn't > find the origin of this issue. For indefinite integration OM has > only had unary integratikn operator taking a function. There've been > some proposals to add a form that takes a term and a variable, but > not to remove the existing symbols, has there? It seems to have started in a message from Paul: " - calculus1: - same for unary" which seems to refer back to " - removed unary in limits1/limit... it doesn't seem strictly necessary (and is rather not k14)" I had initailly read this as Paul was removing the WORD unary, but Stan seems to be interpreting it as removing the unary MEANING.
James Davenport Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199 Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
