Re: [Axiom-developer] Literated VMLISP.LISP.PAMPHLET

[Kai Kaminski]

Frithjof Schulze <address@hidden> writes:

> Kai Kaminski <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> I've 'literated' VMLISP.LISP.PAMPHLET (the result is attached), which
>> contains compatibility/utility code.
>
> I tried the same with eigen.spad.pamphlet. As a beginning I structured
> the file, commented the functions I understand (although sometimes what
> I wrote seems rather obvious) and began to write a little about the
> theory. 
Great! Cliff and I were actually hoping that others might join the
fun.

> I put the file in the wiki-source, so hopefully somebody comes up with
> some kind of criticism. This is just a first try and I welcome
> tips/ideas what to change. Hopefully I didn't made any content related
> errors?
I don't know Spad and I didn't check the content so far, but as far as
I can tell it looks really nice.

I have a few questions/comments:

1) Shouldn't mathematical symbols always be set in math mode, ie. 'the
   field $F$' instead of 'the field F'?

2) Isn't maybe 'Theory' a nicer heading than 'The underlying theory'?
   It's shorter and conveys the same information. Clearly a matter of
   style, though.

3) How about bibliography entries for introductory books or online
   articles on eigenvalues?

> Tree additional questions concerning the literate source I have by now:
>
>     How much theory belongs in a pamphlet? For example after a nice
>     description what the gröberner basis algorithm does, is it important
>     why it terminates? Or is a reference here enough? 
>
>     If every file should be as elaborate as dhmatrix.spad, shouldn't one
>     have a central point where the notation and foundations stuff gets
>     clarified? Else, one would have to introduce the notation of
>     vectors, matrics etc. again in every file that uses them. Maybe one
>     should have a latex-style-convention in the wiki.
I would think so, too. Maybe one could have include files for
different purposes, eg one for linear algebra, another one for group
theory etc.

It would be really nice to have a somewhat unified notation. Since
defining one is an awful lot of work, maybe we could borrow some ideas
from the different math sites on the web (MathWorld, for example).


Thanks a lot,
Kai

PS: I tried to edit the page to remove a typo or two, but it kept
nagging me to register, even though I already did that. I can also
edit other pages. Any idea?