On Tue, March 24, 2009 3:58 pm, Robert Miner wrote: > Hi. > > James wrote: > >> As for the first, am I right in the following: >> (a) This wouldn't preclude OM developing intcond etc. later; >> (b) Since Strict will be isomorphic to OM, these will therefore be >> part of strict; >> (c) Therefore pragmatic->strict COULD be (pace David, I won't say >> WOULD) be enhanced to use these in the future? >> If I am right here, then we probably have a way forward that works >> today and doesn't preclude growth tomorrow. > > You are more expert than I am, but this is what I was thinking/hoping > was correct. And your conclusion is exactly what I am looking for -- a > way forward that works today and doesn't preclude growth tomorrow. David has some concerns, but this may be a way forward. > Of course, as you point out, something still needs to be done about > uplimit/lowlimit vs interval for integrals. Your proposal for a > solution to that will be welcome. OK - I'll try to do that, but I don't guarantee today.
James Davenport Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Otherwise: Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009 IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
