[UEB Maths] Word indicators again

[Janet Reynolds]

I like Stephen's words, and I think they do reflect the position we were
inching towards. There is some protection in there to avoid the word
indictors being used where they are not needed, balanced by a good
description of why they are recommended for functions. I'm interested to
know what other people think. Two brief comments at this stage:=20

I would reorder this sentence as follows as it confused me first time
"In mathematical and similar contexts where algebraic letters are
italisised to distinguish them from embedded words or word fragments
..."

I like the move from "function indicator" to "word indicator" but have
been looking for something that is less likely to be confused with
"grade 1 word indicator". I thought of "letter group indicator" or
"compact word indicator" but neither of those are quite right either.

It's good to hear that you found the teleconference worthwhile, it was
the first time I'd chaired something like this and felt afterwards that
I could surely have done it better, though I couldn't decide if I should
have directed things a bit more or a bit less! But I think this is a
tricky topic where we all prefer what we are used to but need a
compromise that is both mathematically sound and also does not "dig us
into a hole". Telecom promised to send me a CD in a couple of days, so
when that arrives I will throw together some brief minutes. It was great
not to have to take minutes as we talked. The only person I know who can
chair, advocate their own point of view and take accurate minutes all at
the same time is Mary Schnackenberg.
Janet


-----Original Message-----
From: uebmaths-admin@nbp.org [mailto:uebmaths-admin@nbp.org] On Behalf
Of Phippen, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 8:33 p.m.
To: uebmaths@nbp.org
Subject: RE: [UEB Maths] Word indicators again


To: UEB Maths
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 14 July 2005

Thinking (dreaming!) obout our conversation a few hours ago, and being
concerned that we don't dig ourselves into a hole as regards the word
(function) indicator mechanism, I wonder if a formulation on the lines
of the following might be possible, first establishing a general
principle, and then options: (Note that I have written this fairly
quickly, and there are probably gaps to be filled in.)

"In mathematical and similar contexts where italic font is used to
distinguish algebraic letters from embedded words or word fragments
(e.g. as used for functions such as sin and cos), such word fragments
should be separated from adjacent ordinary algebraic letters, to avoid
ambiguity.

"This may be achieved by spacing, or by using the word indicator
described below.

"The word indicator method is generally recommended for functions, such
as trigonometric fuctions, log, etc., as it is normally more compact,
and by avoiding the need for extra spaces provides a better presentation
of mathematical expressions. This method is also more secure in avoiding
ambiguity as it provides a direct distinction between such functions and
algebraic letters, as opposed to only a partially implied distinction,
as when spacing is used.

"When the word indicator method is employed it should be used
consistently within a work for the chosen category of word fragments,
and not just where they are adjacent to algebraic letters.

"Where the normal font distinction between functions and algebraic
letters is not made in the particular print being transcribed, it may be
a transcription policy still to use the word indicator method as if the
distinction had been made. However, the word indicator method should not
be used in contexts where a font distinction is inappropriate, e.g. when
mathematical functions are written in a computer program.

"It is not expected that the word indicator method would be used for
unit abbreviations."

Then the rules for the word indicator would be listed, followed by
examples illustrating both methods.

I will leave this for now (as I have to dash to a BAUK meeting), but I
thought I had better air this slight change of stance from what we said,
to see if others agree.

By the way, I enjoyed the teleconference, and think it was very
productive.

Regards,
Stephen

--=20
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is=20
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended=20
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the=20
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the=20
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it=20
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it=20
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted. We
therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and=20
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk



_______________________________________________
UEBmaths mailing list
UEBmaths@nbp.org
http://nbp.org/mailman/listinfo/uebmaths