The point is that the context must be determined before an expression is evaluated. The rules for evaluation of an expression should be context independent.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Boyko Bantchev <boyk...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 December 2012 01:36, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That sounds like the approach of an orthodoxy rather than of a > > scientific research community. > > Then let the 'scientific research community' produce at least one > study of the kind you said you don't know to exist. Until then what > you call orthodoxy I consider plain common sense. > > > If that is a valid representation of your point of view > > Of course not, but don't let this bother you. > > > For that matter, contrast: > > > > 2dx+3dy > > > > with > > > > 2dm+3km > > I don't see your point, and even the relevance to algebraic notation. > > > x0 + x1 + x2 > > e0 + e1 + e3 > > 2x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 > > 2e0 + 2e1 + 2e3 > > > > The resolution to these issues, of course, is to be very careful what > > we write (for example, if the class uses scientific notation we avoid > > using e as a variable in a context where it might be confusing). > > So what? Symbols are always interpreted in a context. > What is the point of your example? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
