axiom-mail
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [fricas-devel] Re: [Axiom-mail] InputForm

 From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: [fricas-devel] Re: [Axiom-mail] InputForm Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:47:02 -0500

```Bill Page <address@hidden> writes:

| > | On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > ...
| > | > I would reserve the use of InputForm for syntatic canonical
| > | > forms of mathematical objects.
| > | >
| > | Bill Page wrote:
| > | Currently InputForm values can arise both from parsing of input
| > | strings and
| >
|
| On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > That is the job of Syntax domain in OpenAxiom.
| >
|
| Although it sounds logical and desirable, I suppose that direct
| conversion of values in the Syntax domain to "canonical" values in
| InputForm is a rather hard problem. No?

The Syntax domain's primary purpose is as vehicle for terms.  Terms are
semanticalled analyzed (e.g. type checked, resolved), and evaluated.
The evaluation produces a computer representation of a mathematical
object, specified by a domain.  That domain provides -a- canonical
internal repsentation (e.g. dense vs. sparse, factored vs. fully expanded).
To get from internal to external representation, OpenAxiom uses
InputForm, which in displayed form is a linear notation for the
canonical internal representation.  So, I do not know you understand by
'direct conversion'.  A Syntax domain object does not necessarily makes
sense (e.g. may NOT type check), whereas an InputForm is supposed to
have a meaning.

| I am tempted to argue in fact that the primary purpose of most of the
| rest of panAxiom is to do just this sort of conversion - through the
| algebraic "back door" so-to-speak ...

I see OpenAxiom as aiming at computational mathematics as opposed to
just being specialized for algebraic computations only.

-- Gaby

```