Indeed, the semantics of LaTeX is pretty weak. I REALLY wouldn't like to start
from there - even (good) MathML-P, with etc. is much better.
However, LaTeX is what we have, and what we are likely to have in the near
future, so we must live with it, and yours seems like as good an accommodation
>>Another problem is that mathematicians do not mean what they write:
>> $\frac{x+1}2$ is logically an element of Z(x), but the mathematician
probably intended Q[x].
>I think that most people using DLMF.nist.gov would not know or care.
> It's not their part of mathematics
I think this is the fun
On 8/14/2016 11:05 AM, James Davenport wrote:
Indeed, the semantics of LaTeX is pretty weak. I REALLY wouldn't like to start from
there - even (good) MathML-P, with etc. is much better.
However, LaTeX is what we have, and what we are likely to have in the near
future, so we must live with it,
There has been an effort in the past to extract mathematics from
latex. It seems that the usual latex markup does not carry enough
semantic information to disambiguate expressions.
Axiom has a similar problem occasionally where the interpreter
tries to guess and the compiler insists on type specif
