> In message <43C28701.4000203@xxxxxxxxx>, Scott W Brim writes:
> >On 01/09/2006 10:41 AM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
> >> Are you looking for normative figures? If so, can you point to an
> >> example where you think they are necessary? (I'd like to avoid a
> >> discussion of packet diagrams for the moment if that's OK)
> >
> >Normative figures perhaps. Normative equations definitely.
> >
> >Is there any input format for *just* equations (or figures), standing
> >by themselves, which we can agree is open, standardized, stable and
> >deterministic in output?
> >
> LaTeX is the standard in the math and theory world. It's free, and
> runs on just about everything.
LaTeX or some other TeX variant. AMS-TeX is one such but there are a bunch of
others. (Always fun when you get TeX source that uses a macro package you don't
have available.)
> If I recall correctly what Kernighan
> once said, eqn was designed so that its input language was more or
> less what one mathematician would say to another over the phone, which
> (I assume) would help with accessibility. There are open source versions
> of eqn; I think that they run on more or less anything, too.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that design goal was met.
> In the pure HTML world, there's MathML, though it's *really* ugly to
> read. I have no idea how much it's supported by today's browsers.
> (Kernighan started working on an eqn to HTML translator some years ago,
> but back then no browser really worked properly for it.)
It is probably worth noting that another very popular format in the math world
for equations is essentially ASCII art. This is what you tend to get as output
from the various symbolic manipulation packages like Reduce, Macsyma, Maple,
and last time I looked, Mathematica. Stuff like:
2 3 2 2 3 3
w w x (w k + w ) x (3 w k + w ) x
(D7)/T/ -- + --- - -------------- - ---------------- + . . .
4 3 4 3
k k 6 k 6 k
is actually pretty readable. And any of these packages can be used to generate
this sort of thing; no need to piddle around in an editor. (The example above
is a Taylor series expansion from Maxima.) These packages often have TeX and
eqn output modes as well.
Another interesting development in this space is the new programming language
Fortress being developed by Guy Steele, which sticks with simple character
strings but uses the full UTF-8 repetoire to advantage. I personally find it
hard to get used to after so many years of looking at ASCII art equations,
especially when lots of matrix and vectoor stuff is involved, but this might be
an interesting avenue to pursue if we ever started allowing UTF-8. See:
http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/
for additional information.
> Note that I'm *not* saying we should adopt any of these for RFCs; I'm
> simply saying that there are some well-known systems that satisfy at
> least your four criteria.
Indeed. I will also point out that as with anything having to do with which
notation is better or best, getting agreement even in the relatively narrow
confines of the math community is next to impossible. You know how it is: "The
arguments are nasty because the stakes are so low."
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf