Template talk:Axiom

Rather than "m2" for a second column of formulaic content, I recommend "mm" so as to match up with the style of the other table-based templates (i.e. "eqn"). Thinks? --prime mover (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly about it (I don't). The task arising is still quite small at this point, so you'd better get to it now, if ever. --Lord_Farin (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly enough. Sorry dude. Fixed the lattice page as well (still in sandbox). Any others? --prime mover (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the only other instance. --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I changed $\exists -x$ to $\exists {-x}$. On what planet is the former preferred? --Dfeuer (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange. I'd swear that yesterday these both rendered the same (as $\exists {-x}$ does now). --Lord_Farin (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Without the pesky braces round the $-x$ the gaps are bigger and it looks better. --prime mover (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * $\exists - x$ looks like subtracting $x$ from $\exists$. What we actually want is $\exists \, {-x}$ as this more closely matches the subsequent expression. --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It may look like subtracting $x$ from $\exists$ but as the latter is semantically meaningless it can't be. If we need to remove the ambiguity, then render it as $\exists \left({-x}\right)$ (which I think I prefer). --prime mover (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Implemented. Simple and elegant solution. Case closed, onwards! to (more) important stuff. --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible expansion
There are two "m" parameters. Suggest that we may want to expand to three, organised the same way as l, o, r in eqn template, so as to be able to present axioms defined as equations in the usual operator-centred style. These would be named "ml", "mo" and "mr", perhaps. Existing m and mm can stay as they are, with the understanding that you probably wouldn't use them in the same table as ml, mo, mr. --prime mover (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll start tinkering soon. While at it, it'd probably also be considered awesome to have the "t" and "m" interchangeably used? I.e. that something entered as "tl" would be placed on the same position as "ml" but not have it rendered? Could possibly be implemented in eqn template as well, to avoid crafted trickery using the explicit form of that template (there are some instances). But maybe that's not worth the hassle. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If that can be done, then awesome indeed.


 * IMO, not for eqn as that concept does not "feel right" from a high-level philosophical perspective: equations are equations, and for mathematical derivations only. I don't (and I admit that this is a personal view) like the idea of textual expositions as part of an equation - except in the possible context of e.g. elucidation of set definitions - and in that case the text will be invoked inside an existing LaTeX object by means of the "text" command. --prime mover (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. For "legacy" support, the "m" parameter renders at the "ml" place, the "mm" and "t" render at the "mr" place. Thus we have, from left to right:


 * Numbering: "n"
 * Left comment: "lc"
 * Quantifiers: "q"
 * Left math/text: "ml","m","tl"
 * Operator: "mo", "to" (the latter for e.g. "iff")
 * Right math/text: "mr", "tr", "t"
 * Right comment: "rc"


 * I'm quite confident that none of the existing invocations broke because of the amendments. I'll likely hear it when I turn out to be wrong :). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To be explicit, unexpected behaviour may occur when multiple parameters from any one line are used. Just don't do it, it's not supported. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)