#17 <theorem>

CO
closed
6
2007-03-16
2004-08-11
No

Please add a general purpose element for theorems,
definitions, and similar displayed text blocks.

This element, say <theorem>, should have the following
content model:

(head?, p+)

Its attributes include besides global ones:

* "type" (e.g., "theorem" or "definition")
* "typeN" (the theorem number, as in "Definition 3")

The "n" attribute of <theorem>, however, should be
reserved for specifying running numbers of displayed
blocks in general.

Consider the following example:

<theorem n="12" type="definition" typeN="3">
<head>Multiplication</head>
<p>...</p>
</theorem>

which could be rendered as:

(12) Definition 3 (Multiplication)
...

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-08-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    What is the defining characteristic of a "theorem"? If it's
    simply that it has to be formatted in a particular way, maybe
    it would be better to specify "theorem" as a value for the
    rend attribute on some more generic element such as <q> or
    <eg> or <formula> ? (OK, I know, <eg> isn't in P4 yet...)

    Alternatively, if <theorem> is actually intended to have some
    semantics, could you spell them out a bit for us? Not the
    same as the existing <formula>, I assume.

     
  • Andreas Nolda

    Andreas Nolda - 2004-08-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=950793

    Theorem-like entities are well-established structural units in
    scientific (in particular, logical and mathematical) texts.
    (There are several LaTeX implementations providing
    environments for them.)

    Semantically, theorem-like entities are theoretical sentences
    (definitions, axioms, theorems, proofs, etc.). They are
    neither quotations (so <q> is not appropriate) nor examples
    (which could be tagged as <eg>). Unlike <formula>e,
    'theorems' are often formulated in natural language.

    In general, 'theorems' are formatted as a block.

    Normally, a 'theorem' has a label such as "Definition" or "D"
    specifying its type. In many cases, canonical references are
    constructed from the label and a proper counter ("Definition
    3" or "D3").

    Sometimes, 'theorems' are numbered instead by the general
    counter used for all numbered displayed block
    elements--including <formula>e--(e.g. "(12) Definition").
    There are also cases, where both numbers are given ("(12)
    Definition 3").

    Finally, 'theorems' can have an optional header, supplying
    some characterization or 'nick-name' for it, for example:
    "Definition 3 (Multiplication)" or "Theorem 5 (Gdel's
    Incompleteness Theorem)".

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-08-22

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    Thank you for the clarification. There are analogous
    structures in e.g. legal and linguistic texts, so I think I agree
    that it might be helpful to add this concept to the TEI's world
    view. I'm not sure where to put it though.

     
  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2004-09-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=686243

    I agree that a theorem needs someplace to go in the TEI
    scheme. For the time being (i.e., for encoders using P4),
    probably an <ab type="theorem"> is the way to go. I think
    it's worth trying to collect the set of things that tend to
    be treated in the same way (not part of the running prose,
    but part of the main text unlike a <note>; generally occur
    at a specific spot in the text, although may float and be
    referred to from the main text; may have a heading, and may
    be referred to be a number or other label; often rendered by
    being indented on both sides) and seeing if we can extract
    any commonalities. (Andreas has already done this for us, to
    some extent, with "theorem" and "definition". :-) This might
    permit a single element to handle them all (perhaps with a
    type= attribute).
    I don't see the need for the typeN= attribute nor
    restricting the semantics of the global n= attribute for
    <theorem>.

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-09-22

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    I wonder if this <theorem> thing is a possible child of the
    redefined <figure>, along with <eg>?

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-09-22
    • assigned_to: nobody --> louburnard
    • status: open --> pending
     
  • Andreas Nolda

    Andreas Nolda - 2004-09-27

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=950793

    Regarding Syd Bauman's comment on the proposed "typeN"
    attribute: As my original example shows, theorems can have
    up to two numbers: a theorem-type related number ("3" in by
    example above) and a common running number for displayed
    elements like formulae, examples, and theorems ("(12)").
    That may be bad style, but can nevertheless be found in
    real-world papers.

    So, if the encoder (or the author, for that matter) wishes
    to specify both numbers of the theorem explicitly, he needs
    two attributes for that purpose.

     
  • Andreas Nolda

    Andreas Nolda - 2004-09-27
    • status: pending --> open
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-09-27

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    But surely this kind of numbering scheme (where individual
    items get a special number, as well as the general sequence
    numbering) is not specific to theorems? A picture might, for
    example, be Figure 123 with the title "(3) A moonlit scene"

    Would a <label> within the <head> not be a more generic
    approach to solving this kind of problem?

     
  • Andreas Nolda

    Andreas Nolda - 2004-09-29

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=950793

    The problem is that, according to my view, <head> should be
    optional:

    <theorem n="12" type="definition" typeN="3">
    <p>...</p>
    </theorem>

    corresponding to:

    (12) Definition 3
    ...

    The 'bare' label "Definition 3" can be generated from the
    "type" and "typeN" values.

     
  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2006-09-25
    • priority: 5 --> 6
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2006-09-25
    • status: open --> pending
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2006-09-25

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    We agree that <theorem> is a useful new element, even if it
    is only as syntactic sugar for <ab type="theorem">. The
    question is, where should it be documented? The most likely
    candidate module seems to be FT, unless we add it to the
    core. I think the numbering issues are less important, and
    are not restricted to theorems anyway.

     
  • SourceForge Robot

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1312539

    This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
    previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
    did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
    the administrator of this Tracker).

     
  • SourceForge Robot

    • status: pending --> closed
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2006-10-10
    • status: closed --> open
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2006-10-10

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    Reopened pending further discussion

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2007-02-01
    • milestone: --> CO
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2007-03-16
    • status: open --> closed
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2007-03-16

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146
    Originator: NO

    After further discussion on the TEI Council list, there is general agreement that this proposal requires more substantial work before it can be considered for inclusion in TEI P5. The idea is sound, but the details need to be worked on further to make clearer how it fits into the existing structure. The proposal is to use <ab> for the moment, and to work more on this for releases subsequent to P5 1.0

     

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.





No, thanks