Skip to content
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

FMP type=defining #5

Closed
jbs1 opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

FMP type=defining #5

jbs1 opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jbs1
Copy link

jbs1 commented Jul 6, 2016

migrated from Trac, where originally posted by jhd on 26-Oct-2007 7:26am

Allow specifiers on FMP, equivalent to the old DefMP proposal of Cohen et al.
See suggestions from JHD.

@jbs1
Copy link
Author

jbs1 commented Jul 6, 2016

migrated from Trac, where originally posted by jhd on 26-Oct-2007 7:26am

JHD's slides at MKM2007

@jbs1 jbs1 self-assigned this Jul 6, 2016
@jbs1
Copy link
Author

jbs1 commented Jul 6, 2016

migrated from Trac, where originally posted by kohlhase on 25-Feb-2011 12:25pm

rescheduling

@jbs1
Copy link
Author

jbs1 commented Jul 6, 2016

migrated from Trac, where originally posted by lars_h on 31-May-2014 8:37pm

Writing down the following example so that I don't forget it.

In (single variable) complex analysis, the term analytic (function) may be defined as:

  • Satisfies the Cauchy–Riemann equations on the whole of C.
  • The Maclaurin series converges to the function on the whole of C.
  • … and I'm pretty sure there are a bunch more of them (satisfying the Cauchy integral formula seems likely).
    But it was a long time since I did that course, and I may be getting some details wrong.

The point is, that whereas any particular development of complex analysis must choose one of these as the definition of analytic (and then prove the rest as theorems), there is not in the mathematics as such anything which says that one of them is the "proper" definition and the others just logical curiosities. Rather, they are all equivalent. Hence there is no need to single out one of them for a symbol that seeks to denote the concept in general.

One image I'm thinking about is that maybe the graph of all definitions need not be a forest, but rather that it should be given with an edge-colouring where each colour class is acyclic. Colours then correspond to particular developments of mathematics.

@jbs1
Copy link
Author

jbs1 commented Jul 6, 2016

migrated from Trac, where originally posted by jhd on 1-Jun-2014 10:45pm

A good discussion. Is the world ready for this?
However, I suspect that whatever we decide ought NOT to preclude this, which will make for an interesting debate.
Another example might be elementary transcendental functions, where one colouring (tree/forest) would be complex, rooted in exp/log, and the other real, rooted, say, in exp/tan/log/atan (as for Pascal)
Thanks

@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

kohlhase commented Oct 2, 2017

moved to OpenMath/OMSTD#38

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants