[UEB Maths] A Math Mode for UEB?
Joe Sullivan
uebmaths@nbp.org
Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:45:20 -0400
--=====================_25029590==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Hello all,
Thanks to Janet and Stephen for forwarding the message that I had missed --
not, as it turned out, because of our server woes but because of a
procedural mistake on my part. Thanks also to Warren for the pointer to my
old words, which is a reminder that this is far from a new subject. In
fact, the first time that I recall expressing the opinion that UEB would
not eliminate the need for specialty codes was in a speech I gave in 1995,
in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Darleen, who was there, didn't shoot me, so I took
that as a sign that such views were not inconsistent with UEB philosophy.
I agree with Stephen's idea that pragmatic considerations could override
strict adherence to rules in some cases. We had said, for example, that
there would be no need for language indicators when you had two columns of
corresponding words in different languages; surely the dictionary example
would be like that even though columns are not involved. I also agree that
this kind of thing is best left to producer convention and not "the rules."
Turning to the "math function series" question, the more that I think about
adding such a series to the definition of UEB grade 1 -- which would have
the effect of making its use mandatory wherever math functions might appear
--, the more I worry that it would create a difficult complication for
readers, transcribers and teachers who are not intensively involved with
higher math. For example, "gcd" and "lcm," with or without periods, can
come up in fairly early grades, when it would seem unnecessary to require
something as ordinary in appearance as "lcm(2,3)" to be treated so
specially. There would also be the matter of requiring all transcribers to
be aware of what is math and what is not, and (presumably, if we are keyed
to mathematical meaning) to transcribe alike some things that can be
written rather differently in print -- for example "csc" and "cosec" or
"arc sin x" and "sin^-1 x" (where here the ^ indicates that the -1 is in
superscript position). Those are the kinds of things that strike me as OK
in a specialty code, but questionable in a general code that is based on
the philosophy of representing the symbol sequence without deeply involving
the meaning of those symbols.
Mulling those thoughts, I wonder if we don't want to consider a "math mode"
after all, perhaps incorporating some of the following:
1. Math mode would be optional, and typically used only within entire works
judged to be substantially mathematical, and for students or professionals
at higher levels of math (according to some general guideline, not
necessarily airtight). It would not be used for lower grades, nor for works
in which math appears just here and there.
2. A mode entry indicator would be needed, which is easily accomplished.
3. Math mode would be essentially like UEB grade 1 (i.e. no use of the
literary contractions), but in effect it would have contractions of its
own, including a "math function series" along the lines we have been
discussing.
4. In math mode, the dot 5 would be eliminated from the plus sign. Any
instance of an exclamation mark, including its use for the factorial, would
require a preceding grade 1 symbol indicator. (Factorials, which certainly
occur in math, are surely much less common than plus signs.)
5. Likewise all minus signs would be just dots 36, and any hyphens would
need a preceding dots 56.
6. Our one-cell quotation marks could be used instead of the two-cell
ordinary (round) parentheses. The two-cell forms of the quotation marks
would be required if any should occur. (I don't recall ever seeing a
quotation mark within a math expression, but we might as well be covered.)
Any question marks would need a preceding dots 56.
7. Such a mode could be combined with our already-established "numeric
passage" mode whenever it was felt desirable to optimize the treatment of
numbers vs. letters a-j. I don't think such cases would occur very commonly.
I won't go on -- this isn't intended to be a fully worked-out proposal, but
a trial balloon to see what people think of such an idea. I realize that
this kind of approach would still not satisfy the needs of people working
in certain sub-specialties within math and science. A truly efficient code
for intensive work in chemistry, for instance, would probably be very
different from UEB, from the ground up. Likewise we're not going to beat
the current BANA or BAUK computer codes for the work of programmers
creating hundreds of lines of code daily. However, a "general math mode"
could, I think, be quite useful from the point where students who are going
to specialize in technical subjects take a decided turn in that direction
-- about the second year of secondary school, I would guess -- up to the
point where immersion in some deep specialty becomes a possibility (or the
student drops out and becomes a Romanian folk dancer). And such a math mode
would not, I think, require a very large leap of learning when the student
reached the point where it would be useful.
Cheers,
Joe
--=====================_25029590==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
<font size=3D3>Hello all,<br><br>
Thanks to Janet and Stephen for forwarding the message that I had missed
-- not, as it turned out, because of our server woes but because of a
procedural mistake on my part. Thanks also to Warren for the pointer to
my old words, which is a reminder that this is far from a new subject. In
fact, the first time that I recall expressing the opinion that UEB would
not eliminate the need for specialty codes was in a speech I gave in
1995, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Darleen, who was there, didn't shoot me, so
I took that as a sign that such views were not inconsistent with UEB
philosophy.<br><br>
I agree with Stephen's idea that pragmatic considerations could override
strict adherence to rules in some cases. We had said, for example, that
there would be no need for language indicators when you had two columns
of corresponding words in different languages; surely the dictionary
example would be like that even though columns are not involved. I also
agree that this kind of thing is best left to producer convention and not
"the rules."<br><br>
Turning to the "math function series" question, the more that I
think about adding such a series to the definition of UEB grade 1 --
which would have the effect of making its use mandatory wherever math
functions might appear --, the more I worry that it would create a
difficult complication for readers, transcribers and teachers who are not
intensively involved with higher math. For example, "gcd" and
"lcm," with or without periods, can come up in fairly early
grades, when it would seem unnecessary to require something as ordinary
in appearance as "lcm(2,3)" to be treated so specially. There
would also be the matter of requiring all transcribers to be aware of
what is math and what is not, and (presumably, if we are keyed to
mathematical meaning) to transcribe alike some things that can be written
rather differently in print -- for example "csc" and
"cosec" or "arc sin x" and "sin^-1 x"
(where here the ^ indicates that the -1 is in superscript
position). Those are the kinds of things that strike me as OK in a
specialty code, but questionable in a general code that is based on the
philosophy of representing the symbol sequence without deeply involving
the meaning of those symbols.<br><br>
Mulling those thoughts, I wonder if we don't want to consider a
"math mode" after all, perhaps incorporating some of the
following:<br><br>
1. Math mode would be optional, and typically used only within entire
works judged to be substantially mathematical, and for students or
professionals at higher levels of math (according to some general
guideline, not necessarily airtight). It would not be used for lower
grades, nor for works in which math appears just here and there.<br><br>
2. A mode entry indicator would be needed, which is easily
accomplished.<br><br>
3. Math mode would be essentially like UEB grade 1 (i.e. no use of the
literary contractions), but in effect it would have contractions of its
own, including a "math function series" along the lines we have
been discussing.<br><br>
4. In math mode, the dot 5 would be eliminated from the plus sign. Any
instance of an exclamation mark, including its use for the factorial,
would require a preceding grade 1 symbol indicator. (Factorials, which
certainly occur in math, are surely much less common than plus
signs.)<br><br>
5. Likewise all minus signs would be just dots 36, and any hyphens would
need a preceding dots 56.<br><br>
6. Our one-cell quotation marks could be used instead of the two-cell
ordinary (round) parentheses. The two-cell forms of the quotation marks
would be required if any should occur. (I don't recall ever seeing a
quotation mark within a math expression, but we might as well be
covered.) Any question marks would need a preceding dots 56.<br><br>
7. Such a mode could be combined with our already-established
"numeric passage" mode whenever it was felt desirable to
optimize the treatment of numbers vs. letters a-j. I don't think such
cases would occur very commonly.<br><br>
I won't go on -- this isn't intended to be a fully worked-out proposal,
but a trial balloon to see what people think of such an idea. I realize
that this kind of approach would still not satisfy the needs of people
working in certain sub-specialties within math and science. A truly
efficient code for intensive work in chemistry, for instance, would
probably be very different from UEB, from the ground up. Likewise we're
not going to beat the current BANA or BAUK computer codes for the work of
programmers creating hundreds of lines of code daily. However, a
"general math mode" could, I think, be quite useful from the
point where students who are going to specialize in technical subjects
take a decided turn in that direction -- about the second year of
secondary school, I would guess -- up to the point where immersion in
some deep specialty becomes a possibility (or the student drops out and
becomes a Romanian folk dancer). And such a math mode would not, I think,
require a very large leap of learning when the student reached the point
where it would be useful.<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Joe<br>
</font></body>
</html>
--=====================_25029590==.ALT--