Re: wikipedia's (ascii) math notation? emacs easy-way to translate it?

[Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com>]

On Dec 3, 5:47 pm, Tariq <tariq.per...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:22 pm, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > that's one of the myth among open source tech geekers.
>
> > TeX is proprobably not among one of the best tool among typesetting
> > professionals.
>
> See my last comment below.
>
> >  Mathematica is a
> > order of magnitude better because its typesetting system not only
> > passively show math formulas as a pretty printing system, but the
> > markup syntax is also semantically meaningful. (for example, when you
> > type set x^2/x^3, it actually knows that it is x^(2/3)
>
> You are dismally confused about the purpose of TeX and Mathematica.
> They do not address the same problem, and hence comparing them as you
> do only betrays ignorance on your part. Moreover, I do hope this
> example of algebraic expression of yours is just another of your
> mistakes and not what people who wrote the algorithms for Mathematica
> should be proud of.
>
> > In the domain of publishing, there's Framemaker and QuarkXPress, long
> > been the top professional tool since early 1990s. (i haven't used them
> > though) I do not know whether TeX has even have a good percentage of
> > market share among professionals typesetters.
>
> What has market share to do with being a top professional tool? If you
> are habitually confusing quality with something else, I would highly
> recommend a good course in logic at a nearby community college.
>
> Tariq

Alan Mackenzie requested not to discuss Mathematica here. I wish to
end this conversation here too.

since you cross posted to comp.tex.tex, i'll further my argument with
you there.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄