Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> writes:
> Here is a tex- based solution. Set up a big set of
> macro definitions in the TeX language that actually
> understand something about math (precedence, etc.)
>
> Then send to TeX something that is the moral equivalent
> of the internal form of mathematics in Maxima.
>
> (or the MathML form...)
>
> Then let the TeX macros, which would know the line length,
> font size, and the situation (in-line or display), figure
> out whether to do
> (a+b+c)/(d+e+f) or
>
> a+b+c
> ------
> d+e+f
This sounds like an ideal solution. It'd be even nicer (nicer
than ideal?) if the extra commands necessary to write the moral
equivalent of the Maxima's internal form and the macros to work with
them became part of LaTeX. These could be useful in so many
situations.
> The problem here is that writing TeX macros is rather
> uncomfortable for most people.
Most? Not all?
> Another is the size of the macros, which would have to
> somehow be input to the TeX processing of expressions.
Couldn't that be done with \usepackage ... or \input?
> This approach was actually used by Dan Zwillinger to
> simultaneously typeset formulas for Gradshteyn & Rhyzik
> and make it possible to input the forms to computer
> algebra programs.
Is this work available anywhere?
> PS, I agree there are more important issues, but
> this one is so tempting to discuss..
I agree.
Jay