-----maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote: -----
>On?2/2/11,?Barton?Willis?<willisb at unk.edu>?wrote:
>
>>?We?could?define?simplifications?for?the?nounforms?of?integerp?and
>friends.
>
>I?dunno.?I?kind?of?like?that?idea,?but?it?might?be?a?little
>too?subtle?for?anybody?who?hasn't?fully?absorbed?the
>arcana?minor?of?Maxima's?evaluation?/?simplification?\cross
>noun?/?verb?systems?...?Feel?free?to?convince?me,
>I?don't?have?a?strong?opinion?about?it?yet.
I'm not wed to the idea--it's one of several possibilities that I've
considered. Putting simplification functions onto various predicates
would be be easy enough to do and might not break all that much. But
from what I've recently learned about evaluation / simplification from
abs_integrate, I think all this could be confusing.
>Hmm,?what?about?operator?predicates??(<,?=,?>?etc)
>There?isn't?an?obvious?way?to?distinguish?nouns?and?verbs
>for?them;?how?do?they?fit?into?this?scheme?
Yeah, I thought about that too--maybe a simplifying "is" applied to
a blob of inequations would be the way to go? The individual operator
predicates would not simplify.
>I'd?like?to?see?simplifying?predicates?in?some?form,
>I?just?don't?know?yet?what?form?that?would?be.
>
>best
>
>Robert?Dodier
>_______________________________________________
>Maxima?mailing?list
>Maxima at math.utexas.edu
>http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima