From: Hubert Chathi <hubert@uhoreg.ca>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Leslie Lamport has a foot in the 21st century
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:26:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ttxk39i.fsf@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CAAjq1meOQqaEzdW3Y_542LoJsVFnX+rvxVpHHE5m9jUzaP0pkQ@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 10:50:09 -0500, Grant Rettke <gcr@wisdomandwonder.com> said:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Thierry Banel <tbanelwebmin@free.fr> wrote:
>> But... Is Leslie killing LaTex?
> No. LaTeX is a markup/programming-language and it /could/ be compiled
> directly to whatever new ideal format arises, too.
It's not a matter of compiling to the right file format, but rather
whether LaTeX is the right tool for the type of document structure that
Lamport is proposing. His system requires people to be able to expand
and collapse things, which TeX is unable to handle. You might be able
to fake it in TeX by using hyperlinks, but that might drive the PDF/dead
tree readers crazy once they get a couple of levels deep in your proof,
having to keep track of all the links that they had to follow. Not to
mention, it would probably require a lot of TeX black magic to
implement. It would require adding some new environments and/or
commands to LaTeX, which the current LaTeX-to-HTML converters wouldn't
be able to handle -- you'd need to implement those bits. So given that
you'd need to create a bunch of new infrastructure, and TeX would
basically just be dead weight, the question is: is it worth still using
LaTeX, or is it better to start with something else entirely that's
better suited to handle hierarchical proofs?
BTW, Lamport has been talking about hierarchical proofs since the early
90's
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/lamport-how-to-write.pdf
BTW, Grant, if you're interested in different types of scientific
communication, you may be interested in Bret Victor's work, e.g.
http://worrydream.com/#!/ScientificCommunicationAsSequentialArt
--
Hubert Chathi - Email: hubert@uhoreg.ca - https://www.uhoreg.ca/
Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca - Matrix: @uhoreg:matrix.org
PGP/GnuPG key: 4096R/113A1368 (Key available at pool.sks-keyservers.net)
Fingerprint: F24C F749 6C73 DDB8 DCB8 72DE B2DE 88D3 113A 1368
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-09 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-08 8:40 Leslie Lamport has a foot in the 21st century Thierry Banel
2016-10-08 15:50 ` Grant Rettke
2016-10-08 16:38 ` Thomas S. Dye
2016-10-09 14:26 ` Hubert Chathi [this message]
2016-10-09 16:32 ` Marcin Borkowski
2016-10-11 14:56 ` Hubert Chathi
2016-10-11 15:23 ` Clément Pit--Claudel
2017-10-24 16:39 ` Marcin Borkowski
2017-11-11 22:20 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2016-10-09 17:29 ` Thomas S. Dye
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878ttxk39i.fsf@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca \
--to=hubert@uhoreg.ca \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).