[UEB Maths] Some more on formatting and computability

Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:09:43 -0400

--=====================_12076675==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hello everyone,

First, with apologies for the confusion caused by my sloppy typing -- yes, 
I did mean dots 346 as Janet first assumed and as Stephen deduced from the 
reference to "ing".

As regards dot 3 as a terminator for a projected set of special compound 
symbols for math functions -- there should be no problem as long as there 
is an unambiguous initiator for the symbols (which could be accomplished by 
using dots 16 that purpose) and there is no possibility that dot 3 could 
occur within any of the symbol (which is simply a matter of avoiding that 
possibility in the definitions). We've got other similarly defined compound 
symbols, for example our arrows, lines and shapes, and so this would be 
just one more series like those.

We could even still use dots 16 as a shortcut grade 1 terminator that could 
stand on a line by itself, as long as it was required to be followed by a 
space (much as dots 346 would need to be preceded by a space).

I haven't seen Stephen's proposed function series, nor his examples, that 
Janet mentioned. (Our email server has had intermittent outages over the 
last several weeks, so it's possible that I've missed a message or two.) 
However, I'm familiar with the series used in British Braille, so I presume 
it would be similar. One first reaction is that the raw space saving seems 
hardly worth the trouble when you consider that practically all of the most 
common functions are just three letters and the compound symbol 
construction process would yield at least three cells (unless we provide 
for multiple terminators, which would complicate things a little bit) -- 
so, much of the time, the only saving would be the space between the 
function and its argument. However, it might well be that making the whole 
series uniform would convey another kind of intellectual benefit.

Like Janet, I've often thought of the different levels of usage that people 
make of technical notation -- and not just math, but computerese, music, 
chemistry, knitting, astrophysics, Romanian dance notation, you name it. 
UEB was consciously designed for the general reader, which I believe 
encompasses the first and third of the math-using groups that Janet lists, 
and to be "usable" by specialists in technical fields -- but, as we've 
always realized, it is not optimized for any of those fields. It certainly 
strikes me as reasonable that those who see themselves as using 
mathematical notation intensively would want a code that is consciously 
optimized for mathematics. Ideally such a code would be at least loosely 
based in UEB so that it does not constitute a whole new body of learning to 
master; perhaps it could even be a rigorously defined extension of UEB. Is 
our committee charged with working towards such a code or extension? Or is 
there some way short of that to add a math function series or otherwise 
improve intensive math efficiency without detriment to the general reader? 
I haven't any firm conclusions in mind. Perhaps one approach would be to 
have certain usages, such as the function series, that would be applied to 
works that were judged to be heavily mathematical in nature (and for higher 
levels of work or study) but not applied generally -- somewhat the way that 
the "religious contractions" have been used by certain producers on 
religious literature.

A teleconference sounds like a good idea. I'm going to be away at dance 
camp from 23 June through 30 June (learning Romanian folk dances but 
probably NOT working on a braille code for Romanian dance notation), away 
again most of the first week of July at the NFB conference, and on vacation 
the last week of July and the first week of August.

Cheers,
Joe

--=====================_12076675==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<body>
Hello everyone, 
First, with apologies for the confusion caused by my sloppy typing --
yes, I did mean dots 346 as Janet first assumed and as Stephen deduced
from the reference to &quot;ing&quot;. 
As regards dot 3 as a terminator for a projected set of special compound
symbols for math functions -- there should be no problem as long as there
is an unambiguous initiator for the symbols (which could be accomplished
by using dots 16 that purpose) and there is no possibility that dot 3
could occur within any of the symbol (which is simply a matter of
avoiding that possibility in the definitions). We've got other similarly
defined compound symbols, for example our arrows, lines and shapes, and
so this would be just one more series like those. 
We could even still use dots 16 as a shortcut grade 1 terminator that
could stand on a line by itself, as long as it was required to be
followed by a space (much as dots 346 would need to be preceded by a
space). 
I haven't seen Stephen's proposed function series, nor his examples, that
Janet mentioned. (Our email server has had intermittent outages over the
last several weeks, so it's possible that I've missed a message or two.)
However, I'm familiar with the series used in British Braille, so I
presume it would be similar. One first reaction is that the raw space
saving seems hardly worth the trouble when you consider that practically
all of the most common functions are just three letters and the compound
symbol construction process would yield at least three cells (unless we
provide for multiple terminators, which would complicate things a little
bit) -- so, much of the time, the only saving would be the space between
the function and its argument. However, it might well be that making the
whole series uniform would convey another kind of intellectual
benefit. 
Like Janet, I've often thought of the different levels of usage that
people make of technical notation -- and not just math, but computerese,
music, chemistry, knitting, astrophysics, Romanian dance notation, you
name it. UEB was consciously designed for the general reader, which I
believe encompasses the first and third of the math-using groups that
Janet lists, and to be &quot;usable&quot; by specialists in technical
fields -- but, as we've always realized, it is not optimized for any of
those fields. It certainly strikes me as reasonable that those who see
themselves as using mathematical notation intensively would want a code
that is consciously optimized for mathematics. Ideally such a code would
be at least loosely based in UEB so that it does not constitute a whole
new body of learning to master; perhaps it could even be a rigorously
defined extension of UEB. Is our committee charged with working towards
such a code or extension? Or is there some way short of that to add a
math function series or otherwise improve intensive math efficiency
without detriment to the general reader? I haven't any firm conclusions
in mind. Perhaps one approach would be to have certain usages, such as
the function series, that would be applied to works that were judged to
be heavily mathematical in nature (and for higher levels of work or
study) but not applied generally -- somewhat the way that the
&quot;religious contractions&quot; have been used by certain producers on
religious literature. 
A teleconference sounds like a good idea. I'm going to be away at dance
camp from 23 June through 30 June (learning Romanian folk dances but
probably NOT working on a braille code for Romanian dance notation), away
again most of the first week of July at the NFB conference, and on
vacation the last week of July and the first week of August. 
Cheers, 
Joe 
</body>
</html>

--=====================_12076675==.ALT--