Chris Clemens
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In the text, the author uses this symbol for External Direct Product.
He also acknowledges that different authors use other symbols, or other notation.
I found "bun" and "Direct Sum" on Wikipedia, and used that tern to facilitate conversing about the symbol.
Should I assume that one could use three letters for the symbol, i.e, [braille]$EDP because the text also refers to internal direct product.
I'm not sure why this requirement isn't included in the update. The press release (Dec. 2010) says that the Technical Committee "devised an order in which these symbols should appear ... no matter what order they appear in the document." So, even though there must be an error in their first example, I guess their intent was to create a priority list. I will double check with the CBC committee.
1. Bold line goes from the solid dot to the right arrowhead (not the whole line)
2. Bold line from left arrowhead to the empty dot
3. Bold line starts at the solid dot and goes to the right arrowheadA bold arrow head generally has meaning. Because all of the arrowheads, including those at the end of a not-bold line, look the same, I would not use the double arrowhead (bold) on any of them.
I would like to add my thoughts to this one. I agree that the symbol in question is not your "typical" plus sign in a circle. However, it IS called a "direct sum" in addition to the "bun" name. Unless the text actually says "bun", I think it would be clearer to the reader to acknowledge that it is a type of sum and do so using the shape indicator and ds rather than bn. Just another thought to add to the mix. We think we've seen it all until the next one comes along!
Alicia,
Since your certification manuscript is going to be only one volume, you would eliminate the line (per 19.2f(1) of the contents page that states Volume 1.
Jana
At least one volume shipped with the "bun" symbol in it's unwieldy form.
Looking at sec. 107, the examples are a church and a moon. These things would be impossible to construct via modified shapes.
I'm satisfied with "Bun I" for this transcription, though I will definitely consider [braille]$BN in the future.
[braille],z;p;;1;~n;~;1"$bn,z;p;;2;~n;~;2"$bn ''' $bn,z;p;;k;~n;~;k,
You did the supers and subs correctly as far as I can tell. I have incorporated the latest (and better) suggestion for the "bun" symbol. It is only 3 cells and much easier to read. Follow rule XVI sec. 107 which says: for a shape not in the Basic Shapes list, use the shape indicator and one or more letters representing the name of the shape. As you can tell, we all continue to learn when it comes to the Nemeth Code.
There was a suggestion recently regarding a symbol that looks like a triangle pointing to the left -- that we follow rule XVI section 107. "Signs of shape which do not appear in the list of Basic Shapes must be represented by the use of one or more letters suggestive of the name of the shape being represented." Hopefully you haven't progressed too far with my earlier recommendation. It would be more efficient to use [braille]$bn for "bun", don't you think? And we would be adhering to the Nemeth Code. Or if your book is using different terminology, choose two letters to represent the name the authors have given the symbol.
My ASCII typing is sub-optimal; what I meant to say was:
[braille],z;p;;1;^n;^;1"$c_$:`|},z;p;;2;^n;^;2"$c_$:`|} ''' ,z;p;;k;^n;^;k"$c_$:`|},
