On 25/05/2020 23:42, Ben wrote:
You're totally correct -- Latex is ambiguous. I don't find your
observation discouraging since it is perfectly reasonable.
The issue I'm interested in tackling is the conversion of math
presented in Physics papers (e.g., .tex files on arxiv.org) to a
semantically meaningful and unambiguous representation (e.g., Sympy).
This issue would be moot if Physics papers were written in Sympy. I
don't have insight on how to construct incentives that would lead to
use of Sympy in Physics papers, so I'm working on the Latex-to-Sympy
approach.
Right - well in that case, maybe a system of hints that the user could
add to your parser, would be really useful. For example if a user could
tell your parser that superscripts were usually tensor subscripts rather
than exponents (or alternatively that certain symbols used as
superscripts would never mean exponents) you could come out with a
better translation. Another useful hint, might be a list of the
multi-letter symbols in use - sin, cos, exp, ln etc. so that you could
resolve your ambiguity of what ab means - I mean sometimes sin(x) might
mean s*i*n(x) and that could be handled by user specifying that only
certain multi-letter symbols were in use.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/9ae35fb2-b4fa-2b82-4790-2440bac5c1f0%40dbailey.co.uk.
