Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #8011 > unrolled thread

on cut edges and bonds, graph theory

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-18 12:51 -0300
    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-18 20:40 +0100
      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-18 21:39 -0700
        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-19 13:05 +0100
          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-19 19:47 -0700
            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-20 14:28 +0100
              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-20 21:06 -0700
                Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-21 17:03 +0100
                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-21 15:06 -0300
                    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-21 21:24 +0100
                      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-21 17:57 -0300
                        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-21 23:40 +0100
                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-21 20:45 -0700
                    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-23 02:27 +0100
                      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-22 19:49 -0700
                        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-09-23 08:04 +0100
                          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-23 08:41 -0300
                          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2017-09-24 14:00 -0700
                        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-23 14:50 +0100
                          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-23 22:04 -0700
                            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-09-24 07:39 +0100
                              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-25 01:13 -0700
                                Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-09-25 09:46 +0100
                                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-25 21:38 -0700
                                    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-09-26 10:19 +0100
                                      Modern Trash William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-26 03:37 -0700
                                        Re: Modern Trash David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-26 12:52 +0200
                                        Re: Modern Trash Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-09-26 23:10 +0100
                            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-24 22:33 +0100
                              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-25 01:08 -0700
                                Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-25 20:44 +0100
                                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-25 21:36 -0700
                                    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-26 12:04 +0100
                                      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-26 23:15 -0700
                                        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-27 12:52 +0100
                                          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-09-27 19:55 -0700
                      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-09-24 16:55 +0000
          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-22 10:23 +0200
            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-22 21:18 +0100
              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-23 08:48 -0300
              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-25 10:17 +0200
                Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-25 07:31 -0300
                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-25 13:30 +0200
                Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-25 20:32 +0100
                  Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-26 10:12 +0200
                    Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-26 11:53 +0100
                      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-09-26 13:24 +0200
      Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-19 16:21 -0300
        Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-20 17:43 +0100
          Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-21 16:20 -0300
            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-21 17:52 -0300
            Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-09-21 22:02 +0100
              Re: on cut edges and bonds, graph theory Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2017-09-23 13:42 -0300

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8040

On 24/09/17 06:04, William Elliot wrote:
>> I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
> 
>>> The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
>>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
> 
> That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and
> pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit
> blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears
> as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?

On my system, the following five-key combination will do it for 
intersections:

[Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][9]

Which results in the [∩] character (the INTERSECTION character).

And for unions it's [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][A]:

Which results in the [∪] character (the UNION character). As I look at 
them when writing this, they are perfect renditions of the usual symbols 
employed by mathematicians for those purposes.

Your system may behave differently, of course. Computers are like that.

2229 and 222A are, respectively, the Unicode code points for 
intersections and unions. To the best of my knowledge these are 
standard, non-proprietary characters.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8045

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 24/09/17 06:04, William Elliot wrote:
> > > I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
> > 
> > > > The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
> > > > For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
> > 
> > That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and
> > pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit
> > blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears
> > as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?
> 
> On my system, the following five-key combination will do it for
> intersections:
> 
> [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][9]
> 
> Which results in the [∩] character (the INTERSECTION character).
> 
> And for unions it's [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][A]:

$\cup$ in TeX is simpler and readable by all.

> Which results in the [∪] character (the UNION character). As I look
> at them when writing this, they are perfect renditions of the usual
> symbols employed by mathematicians for those purposes.

> Your system may behave differently, of course. 
> Computers are like that.

> 2229 and 222A are, respectively, the Unicode code points for
> intersections and unions. To the best of my knowledge these are
> standard, non-proprietary characters.

It's not implimented by all software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8047

On 25/09/17 09:13, William Elliot wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 24/09/17 06:04, William Elliot wrote:
>>>> I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
>>>
>>>>> The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
>>>>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
>>>
>>> That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and
>>> pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit
>>> blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears
>>> as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?
>>
>> On my system, the following five-key combination will do it for
>> intersections:
>>
>> [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][9]
>>
>> Which results in the [∩] character (the INTERSECTION character).
>>
>> And for unions it's [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][A]:
> 
> $\cup$ in TeX is simpler and readable by all.

I covered that suggestion in an earlier reply.

>> Which results in the [∪] character (the UNION character). As I look
>> at them when writing this, they are perfect renditions of the usual
>> symbols employed by mathematicians for those purposes.
> 
>> Your system may behave differently, of course.
>> Computers are like that.
> 
>> 2229 and 222A are, respectively, the Unicode code points for
>> intersections and unions. To the best of my knowledge these are
>> standard, non-proprietary characters.
> 
> It's not implimented by all software.

What is?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8056

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > On my system, the following five-key combination will do it for
> > > intersections:
> > > 
> > > [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][9]
> > > 
> > > Which results in the [∩] character (the INTERSECTION character).
> > > 
> > > And for unions it's [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][A]:
> > 
> > $\cup$ in TeX is simpler and readable by all.
> 
> I covered that suggestion in an earlier reply.

I didn't find it.

> > > 2229 and 222A are, respectively, the Unicode code points for 
> > > intersections and unions. To the best of my knowledge these are 
> > > standard, non-proprietary characters.
> > 
> > It's not implimented by all software.
> 
> What is?

Plain text.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8058

On 26/09/17 05:38, William Elliot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On my system, the following five-key combination will do it for
>>>> intersections:
>>>>
>>>> [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][9]
>>>>
>>>> Which results in the [∩] character (the INTERSECTION character).
>>>>
>>>> And for unions it's [Shift-Ctrl-U][2][2][2][A]:
>>>
>>> $\cup$ in TeX is simpler and readable by all.
>>
>> I covered that suggestion in an earlier reply.
> 
> I didn't find it.

It may not be immediately obvious to those who don't spend a significant 
part of their lives using TeX to write articles on mathematics that 
$\cup and $\cap mean "union" and "intersection". I certainly didn't know 
that, and I had to look it up. Ben's article used the proper characters, 
which my newsreader correctly interpreted and which I understood 
immediately. If he'd used TeX markup, understanding his article would 
have involved a modicum of extra work for me. He had the courtesy not to 
make me do that.

>>>> 2229 and 222A are, respectively, the Unicode code points for
>>>> intersections and unions. To the best of my knowledge these are
>>>> standard, non-proprietary characters.
>>>
>>> It's not implimented by all software.
>>
>> What is?
> 
> Plain text.

Then why can't I configure Thunderbird not to interpret the HTML in 
incoming emails? (I'm not saying it can't be done - but I've tried 
damned hard and not managed it yet.)

No, plain text is not implemented by all software, at least not in the 
way I would like.

Look, in one important sense you're right - plain text is a much better 
option, *when available*. But markup isn't what I would call "plain 
text". Plain text is simply not an available option when the message you 
need to convey is not representable in plain text (except, of course, 
that you can spend ages spelling out the formula instead of using the 
usual symbols).

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8059 — Modern Trash

> Then why can't I configure Thunderbird not to interpret the HTML in 
> incoming emails? (I'm not saying it can't be done - but I've tried 
> damned hard and not managed it yet.)

Pine allows enriched header which shows the routing information of the 
email and also HTML, a pesky language to write without assisting 
software.  TeX is like that and there's no assisting software.
I've a pseudo TeX language that could easily be complied into
basic TeX - the fancy stuff isn't really needed

With the web, fancy stuff gets in the way and makes 
some sites unworthy to be read and others unreadable.

> No, plain text is not implemented by all software, at least not in the
> way I would like.
> 
> Look, in one important sense you're right - plain text is a much 
> better option, *when available*. But markup isn't what I would call 
> "plain text". Plain text is simply not an available option when the 
> message you need to convey is not representable in plain text 
> (except, of course, that you can spend ages spelling out the formula 
> instead of using the usual symbols).

In the plain text math groups, plain text math symbols evolved
and were very useful.  I easily learned and taught a lot of math 
that way.  Now that I'm forced to be modernized, my productivity 
has fallen significantly because modern stuff it too complicated to 
be efficient, wasting, for example, lots of time getting it to read 
easily.  

Windows is a disaster, taking control of your computer away from you;  
treating you like a dummy;  making using a computer harder and now, 
not including any manuals or manuals with coverage so scant not even a 
strip tease artist would cover themselves with it.  I'm shocked it 
became a world standard.

Plain text isn't allowed because it can't be new and improved,
made glitsy and glamorous into something everybody just has to have.
It's more important to make a one byte character such as a quote sign
into a string of characters, that for many readers, doesn't show as a 
fancy quote sign, but a string of distracting characters.

After all, when you make a phone call, why would you put up with a 
person answering the phone?  No, just talk with that ultra convenient, 
artificial stupidity system with a comprehension of English below that 
of a kindergardner.  Would you even accept that old fashion:

Thank you for using 911 emergency services.  Please listen 
carefully to the following menu for the choices may have changed.
	Press 1, for a fire emergency
	Press 2, for a police emergency
	Press 3, for a medical emergency
or stay on the line for an emergency specialist to assist you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8060 — Re: Modern Trash

On 26/09/17 12:37, William Elliot wrote:
>> Then why can't I configure Thunderbird not to interpret the HTML in 
>> incoming emails? (I'm not saying it can't be done - but I've tried 
>> damned hard and not managed it yet.)
> 
> Pine allows enriched header which shows the routing information of the 
> email and also HTML, a pesky language to write without assisting 
> software.  TeX is like that and there's no assisting software.
> I've a pseudo TeX language that could easily be complied into
> basic TeX - the fancy stuff isn't really needed

Plain TeX is not often used directly - people mostly prefer higher-level
packages like LaTeX or AMSTeX.  TeX is designed in such a way that you
can make packages like that - it is one of the uses of the "fancy stuff".

Oh, and while /you/ might not need the "fancy stuff", other people do.
I make heavy use of macros, boxes, references, and the like.

I am still with Richard, however, in preferring utf-8 characters
directly in a Usenet post rather than \cap and the like.  For a nice
maths document, you want LaTeX to get the symbols sized well, with good
spacing - for a quick Usenet post you just want to convey the information.

> 
> With the web, fancy stuff gets in the way and makes 
> some sites unworthy to be read and others unreadable.
> 
>> No, plain text is not implemented by all software, at least not in the
>> way I would like.
>>
>> Look, in one important sense you're right - plain text is a much 
>> better option, *when available*. But markup isn't what I would call 
>> "plain text". Plain text is simply not an available option when the 
>> message you need to convey is not representable in plain text 
>> (except, of course, that you can spend ages spelling out the formula 
>> instead of using the usual symbols).
> 
> In the plain text math groups, plain text math symbols evolved
> and were very useful.  I easily learned and taught a lot of math 
> that way.  Now that I'm forced to be modernized, my productivity 
> has fallen significantly because modern stuff it too complicated to 
> be efficient, wasting, for example, lots of time getting it to read 
> easily.  
> 
> Windows is a disaster, taking control of your computer away from you;  
> treating you like a dummy;  making using a computer harder and now, 
> not including any manuals or manuals with coverage so scant not even a 
> strip tease artist would cover themselves with it.  I'm shocked it 
> became a world standard.

Yeah, well, you just have to get used to it.  Most people who are
familiar with non-Windows systems think Windows is a disaster.  And
nothing has done more to reduce the quality of typesetting than the
spread of MS Word.  But moaning about the "good old days", and telling
us how "when I were a lad we carved our own potatoes when we wanted to
print mathematics" does not help.  And certainly missing out on useful
"new" technology like Unicode does not help - unless your aim is to
convince people you have refused to learn anything in the last couple of
decades.

Use tools that work best in the circumstances.  For maths symbols on
Usenet, that is Unicode in utf-8 encoding.  For maths symbols in typeset
documents, that is usually some form of TeX - unless compatibility with
non-TeXies means using Word or LibreOffice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8065 — Re: Modern Trash

On 26/09/17 11:37, William Elliot wrote:

> Windows is a disaster, taking control of your computer away from you;

That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one. Is anyone in this conversation 
actually using Windows?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8043

William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:

>> I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
>
>>> The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
>>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
>
> That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and 
> pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit 
> blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears 
> as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?

I typed the Emacs command to insert a Unicode "COMBINING OVERLINE", a
Unicode "UNION" and a Unicode "INTERSECTION" character.  My Usenet
client then decides on the most suitable encoding for the post which, in
this case, had to be UTF-8.  That decision is then announced by adding
the appropriate header to the post.

The sequences you see are how your local software chooses to display the
UTF-8 encoding of the these characters.  There is nothing proprietary
about any of them.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8044

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:
> 
> >> I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
> >
> >>> The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
> >>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
> >
> > That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and 
> > pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit 
> > blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears 
> > as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?
> 
> I typed the Emacs command to insert a Unicode "COMBINING OVERLINE", a
> Unicode "UNION" and a Unicode "INTERSECTION" character.  My Usenet
> client then decides on the most suitable encoding for the post which, in
> this case, had to be UTF-8.  That decision is then announced by adding
> the appropriate header to the post.

The decision is just a guess because it doesn't know all the different 
readers used at usenet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8052

William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> I didn't use any non-standard proprietary control characters.
>> >
>> >>> The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?~E].
>> >>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?~H? B = V, A ?~H?
>> >
>> > That is what is unreadable.  What you see here is was cut and 
>> > pasted into this reply.  On the screen, ? appears as a high-bit 
>> > blank, ~E appears as a single character, ctrl-E and ~H appears 
>> > as a single character, ctrl-H.  What did you type to get that?
>> 
>> I typed the Emacs command to insert a Unicode "COMBINING OVERLINE", a
>> Unicode "UNION" and a Unicode "INTERSECTION" character.  My Usenet
>> client then decides on the most suitable encoding for the post which, in
>> this case, had to be UTF-8.  That decision is then announced by adding
>> the appropriate header to the post.
>
> The decision is just a guess because it doesn't know all the different 
> readers used at usenet.

No, it is not a guess.  It picks the first in a specified list of
character encodings that can validly represent all the characters in the
post.  When I post plain test it uses plain text.  If I need a few
accents it will use ISO-8859-1.  In this case it had to use the most
general UTF-8.  The list is of my choosing (though I think I've kept the
suggested default value) so no guess is involved at all.

If I want to post for the lowest common denominator reader, I ask for my
post to have Content-Type: text/plain (implied charset=us-ascii) and the
software will tell me if I've used any non-ASCII characters and it will
ask me what to do about them.  The posting format was a fully-conscious,
deliberate decision of mine.  I knew there would be people using
software that would not see the characters I had types.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8055

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> If I want to post for the lowest common denominator reader, I ask 
> for my post to have Content-Type: text/plain (implied 
> charset=us-ascii) and the software will tell me if I've used any 
> non-ASCII characters and it will ask me what to do about them.  The 
> posting format was a fully-conscious, deliberate decision of mine.  
> I knew there would be people using software that would not see the 
> characters I had types.

Usenet is plain text.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8062

William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> If I want to post for the lowest common denominator reader, I ask 
>> for my post to have Content-Type: text/plain (implied 
>> charset=us-ascii) and the software will tell me if I've used any 
>> non-ASCII characters and it will ask me what to do about them.  The 
>> posting format was a fully-conscious, deliberate decision of mine.  
>> I knew there would be people using software that would not see the 
>> characters I had types.
>
> Usenet is plain text.

I refer you to RFC 5536.

By the way, my post /was/ plain text in the technical sense of having
Content-Type: text/plain.  I suspect you don't mean that.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8066

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> > Usenet is plain text.
> 
> I refer you to RFC 5536.

There are a thousand meanings to RFC.

> By the way, my post /was/ plain text in the technical sense of having
> Content-Type: text/plain.  I suspect you don't mean that.

Plain low bit ascii text.  Is there a term for the simple?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8067

William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:

> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> > Usenet is plain text.
>> 
>> I refer you to RFC 5536.
>
> There are a thousand meanings to RFC.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I was using RFC 5536 to mean the Internet
Request For Comments numbered 5536.  It defines the format for Usenet
posts.

>> By the way, my post /was/ plain text in the technical sense of having
>> Content-Type: text/plain.  I suspect you don't mean that.
>
> Plain low bit ascii text.  Is there a term for the simple?

I'd call it ASCII text though even that is probably not quite enough.
For example, does your news client do something helpful with a form feed
character?  For example,

Some clients put this text on another "page".  It used to be used for
"spoilers" but when clients started to emerge that did not understand
the convention, people had to find another way to do it.  Using lots of
blank lines or ROT-13, for example.

The point being that even ASCII includes a lot of control characters
that might confuse a reader (either human or software).  You want a term
for low-bit ASCII text the excludes all but a few well-understood
controls like TAB, LF and CR.  I don't know of a good term for that.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8068

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Plain low bit ascii text.  Is there a term for the simple?
> 
> I'd call it ASCII text though even that is probably not quite enough.
> For example, does your news client do something helpful with a form feed
> character?  For example,
> 
> Some clients put this text on another "page".  It used to be used for
> "spoilers" but when clients started to emerge that did not understand
> the convention, people had to find another way to do it.  Using lots of
> blank lines or ROT-13, for example.
> 
> The point being that even ASCII includes a lot of control characters
> that might confuse a reader (either human or software).  You want a term
> for low-bit ASCII text the excludes all but a few well-understood
> controls like TAB, LF and CR.  I don't know of a good term for that.

Ascii ctrl-characters were part of the IBM standard.
Those work as usual while others are no longer used.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8041

On 2017-09-23, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:
>>> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> >> Who is "we"?
>>> >
>>> > Those of us who wrote, learned and taught math in plain text ascii on 
>>> > Usenet.
>>> 
>>> Ah, right.  It's an odd word to use since I too learned that but I
>>> appear not to be included in the "we".
>>
>> We stuck with ascii.
>
> I am still not included in the "we" so it's wrong to talk about "we"
> having done anything.  *You* stuck with ASCII, and I hope it turns out
> to be a good choice for you.

Some languages have different words for different uses of "we".
For example, in the Indonesian language, there is

- kami : "we" (the speaker and others) excluding the person(s) one
  is talking to ("we, but not you").

- kita: "we" (the speaker and others) including the person(s) one
  is talking to ("we, and that means you too").

English does not differentiate between those use cases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8029

On 19/09/17 14:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> <snip>
>>> ...  The book uses an over bar for that case: [S, S?E].
>>>
>>> For [A, B] to be an edge cut, A ?H? B = V, A ?H? B = {}, A =/= {} and
>>> B =/= {}.
> <snip>
>> What does S?E and ?H? mean?
> 
> They means that some software has had trouble with the Content-Type of
> my post.  They are the transliteration chosen by that software for byte
> sequences representing a combining overline, set union and set
> intersection.
> 

Out of curiosity, how do you type the S̅?  Is it a combining macron or
something?  The union symbol ∪ and the like are easy enough to find in a
character map program.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8031

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
<snip>
> Out of curiosity, how do you type the S̅?  Is it a combining macron or
> something?

A macron is usually shorter: S̄.  It's a combining overline (U+0305).

I use Emacs as my Usenet client so I use that directly because it can
auto-complete (and search) Unicode character names.  When I write the
original, I was not sure what character was the right one (and I did
indeed try a macron first!) so seeing all the completion options was
very helpful.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8036

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> <snip>
>> Out of curiosity, how do you type the S̅?  Is it a combining macron or
>> something?
>
> A macron is usually shorter: S̄.  It's a combining overline (U+0305).
>
> I use Emacs as my Usenet client so I use that directly because it can
> auto-complete (and search) Unicode character names.  When I write the
> original, I was not sure what character was the right one (and I did
> indeed try a macron first!) so seeing all the completion options was
> very helpful.

I didn't know Emacs did this.  C̅ as is combining.

  M-x insert-char RET combining overline RET

Great.  Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web