On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:00 AM, dimpase wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 00:20:02 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?)
>>> on the left-hand side
On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 00:20:02 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?)
>> on the left-hand side. It just sits there for no good reason, and is a
>> dist
Looks good. Glad to hear your Chrome problem got sorted out.
You are at about the limit of what I know about configuration. The
mathjax-users group is *very* prompt and helpful if you follow their
posting guidelines when you ask for help:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mathjax-users/
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:12:29 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> One thing I didn't like was the inability to hide the contents frame(?) on
> the left-hand side. It just sits there for no good reason, and is a
> distraction.
> IMHO it should automatically hide itself...
>
Yes, we discu
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 21:23:44 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they should rather generate your XML? (beezertex filename ;-))
>> No, seriously...
>>
>
> Yes, seriously. ;-) I hope that something like this
Thanks, Bill. It continues to be fun and there's lots more to do. But I am
also looking forward to writing more content myself. ;-)
Rob
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:54:37 AM UTC-7, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Rob, this is truly fantastic work. I want to congratulate you on getting
> this up and r
Dear Bernard,
I was thinking more of the "static" HTML pages you sent that had been
generated from TeX/LaTeX with your GIAC extensions (giac.tex). The
mathematics on those pages might look better with MathJax and that would be
an easier scenario to configure.
For the calculator page you just
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:12:38 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> IMHO we should think about moving non-technical Sage docs to mathbook.
>>
> write an automatic converted, why not...
>
>
Sage-flavored ReST/Sphinx might be structured/predictable enough to be very
amenable to this.
--
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Perhaps they should rather generate your XML? (beezertex filename ;-))
> No, seriously...
>
Yes, seriously. ;-) I hope that something like this will be in place
eventually.
> Please note that I actually rather like t
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:45:16 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
> It would be nice if Sage cells would know about which cells they depend
> on; Right now evaluating a cell in the middle is very likely to cough up an
> error message about something not being defined.
>
Yes, Sage Cells are
On 8/1/15 05:45, Volker Braun wrote:
It would be nice if Sage cells would know about which cells they depend
on; Right now evaluating a cell in the middle is very likely to cough up
an error message about something not being defined.
Interesting idea. Complicating factors include:
1. Executin
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 10:45:16 UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM UTC+2, Rob Beezer wrote:
>>
>> Seems only tex can understand TeX. ;-)
>>
>
> Tex it a Turing-complete language, XML is not. Hence only TeX can
> understand TeX,
>
Rather, "Wahr sind
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:14:33 AM UTC+2, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> Seems only tex can understand TeX. ;-)
>
Tex it a Turing-complete language, XML is not. Hence only TeX can
understand TeX, but for XML there are various 100% compliant parsers and
converters. IMHO your decision to use XML i
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 03:14:33 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2015 05:25 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > And if it is so easy to convert LaTeX into HTML, why hasn't anybody
> done it
> > successfully? tex4ht is the only one I know that comes close, and
> only
> > beca
On 07/31/2015 05:25 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
And if it is so easy to convert LaTeX into HTML, why hasn't anybody done it
successfully? tex4ht is the only one I know that comes close, and only
because it is the only one that uses the tex executable.
sure, why is this bad to use the
On Saturday, 1 August 2015 01:03:25 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
>> as certainly is the case for \section or \item..
>> (unless you spent a large part of y
Dear Bernard,
Thanks for the note and links. I was not very aware of GIAC. It could be
a useful thing for MathBook XML authors to have available.
Have you considered using MathJax within your HTML output? It too is
Javascript and can be configured to execute locally.
Rob
On Friday, July 31
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I wish Knuth did review (X)HTML format proposals for sanity...
>
I should add that MathBook XML adds no new syntax for mathematics proper.
In other words, symbols, equations, displays are not written in something
like MathM
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
> as certainly is the case for \section or \item..
> (unless you spent a large part of your life writing HTML or XML by hand,
> of course :-))
>
So where does
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 3:47:56 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> XML? I wish pandoc (http://pandoc.org/) could handle conversions to and
> from your format...
> Do people really want to write XML by hand? I tried it once (GAP docs can
> be prepared using XML) and was not amused.
>
> Ju
On Friday, 31 July 2015 15:27:19 UTC+1, David Farmer wrote:
>
>
> In most cases, MathBook XML is not more cumbersome than
> LaTeX, particularly if you are using an editor which
> automatically inserts closing tags.
You don't need a closing tag that can be inserted by software,
as certainly i
In most cases, MathBook XML is not more cumbersome than
LaTeX, particularly if you are using an editor which
automatically inserts closing tags. For example, in LaTeX
\section{...} starts a section, and you do not have to
explicitly indicate where the section ends. In MBX, you have
to supply t
On Friday, 31 July 2015 02:17:27 UTC+1, Rob Beezer wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote:
>>
>> I had a quick look, but I'm still a little bit confused how the source
>> are written. Do you write your source files in xml or have you some kind of
>> converter
Thanks, Anne, for your interest. I've never taught out of Artin, and my
copy is not here at home. But I'll say that Tom's book is very much like
Gallian's, which I used for many years. Tom has also used it for a
graduate course.
And there are a few Sage examples with a distinctly combinatori
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote:
>
> I had a quick look, but I'm still a little bit confused how the source are
> written. Do you write your source files in xml or have you some kind of
> converter from a latex source file?
>
MathBook XML is the "XML application" I
Dear Rob,
This looks like a great book! I will be teaching Abstract Algebra at UC
Davis in the fall and will try to use
it (along with Artin's book). How does it compare to Artin "Algebra",
besides offering many Sage examples?
Best wishes,
Anne
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:32:36 PM UTC-7,
26 matches
Mail list logo
