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

[Tariq <tariq.perwez@gmail.com>]

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