-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Intent for "by" (as in 3×4 matrix) #486
Comments
To start the discussion let me list out the obvious ideas and their design tension:
To also invoke a related precedent, the set membership operation That's all I can offer for now, hoping for a great idea... |
Could this be used to describe a rectangle of "two kilometers by three" ? |
To Paul's rectangle question, well, And all of those are specific to 2D objects. In 3D we get, for example
More generally, for a "rank n" tensor we could see an even larger sequence of |
I think I would use |
"dimension" is not an awful name for speech ("dimension of 2 and 3" or maybe "dimension of 2 comma 3") but definitely not great. Maybe it is a little better as a prefix concept name ("dimension 2 3"). It does fit with the use of a conceptual name. "by:infix" works for speech for two and higher dimensions, but isn't good as a conceptual name. It's a good example for our discussion on Feb 1 about naming. |
given that
presumably produces the intended outcome, I think we would have to show some major advantages and interoperable behaviour to persuade people to generate more complicated forms such as
|
We should also do that when advocating to promote non-concept English writing from a literal annotation ( You'll certainly find it used as a keyword - e.g. in C# and kotlin. But currently intent doesn't have a "keyword" category. Is anyone suggesting that we introduce one? If not, Once we cast the discussion into advantages between using concepts and literals, it's easier to motivate. There is added value, e.g. The harder question is whether that kind of capability is desirable to build into Core. |
No I would disagree and certainly prefer |
To expand on the point in the above comment, use of literals can help if you want to force a particular speech, especially in conjunction with a silent head such as
but if you are using intent on the operator and want to imply that it is a matrix dimension operation, which you just happen to want to speak as
is I think a perfectly good markup. |
The two Intent uses of the "by" preposition I can accept on my end are both literals: <mrow intent="_(1,_by,3)">
<mn>1</mn><mo>×</mo><mn>3</mn>
</mrow>
<!-- vs -->
<mrow>
<mn>1</mn><mo intent="_by">×</mo><mn>3</mn>
</mrow> By the by, it was fun to learn that "6 by 3" can be either 18 or 2, depending on whether the implied operation was "multiplied by" or "divided by". In Bulgarian they never overlap, we have 2 different preposition words - "6 по 3" and "6 на 3". Neither of those are concepts of course. |
@dginev the two you show obviously work but essentially say there is no implied or known meaning and just read the word as-is, which is fine if you are generating this stuff and that's all you know, but must surely be a last resort.
on the contrary allows reference to a system specific concept dictionary that says this construct is being used for matrix size, so it's shorter and more informative. All three versions are valid so it doesn't really matter which one either of us prefer. The versions you show have no concept, so the core concept dictionary isn't involved, and I wouldn't push for I don't think "6 by 3" can mean divided by in isolaton but certainly it can given a suitable prefix such as "divide 6 by 3" it can also of course mean not-quite-division-but-using-the-division-syntax-of-leibnitz as in d y by d x |
@davidcarlisle you're certainly correct that in the current state of things, there's no difference between Of course, given the nature of an open dictionary list, there's not much way of forbidding such eventual conflicts, but I think we should be circumspect in how we encourage it. |
@brucemiller if we are worried about conflicting system specific uses of I think explicitly marking up that it has no known meaning and using a literal should be the last resort here, but is always available and is better than "guessing" a meaning when you are remediating a document and you don't have any other knowledge other than the provided presentation. Basically if you know what the symbol means and you are adding intent the end result should never consist purely of literals, as doing that is stoping a system guessing the meaning (as you added intent) and saying you don't know what the meaning is (as you just provided a literal string and no concepts) I would rather have |
|
Added to the core list |
At the 18 Jan meeting, we discussed @davidfarmer's wish list. One of the entries is "by" using the
×
operator. This is used to describe the dimensions of matrices and other tabular layout. Maybe other things?We decided this needed some thought and discussion; hence this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: