August 31, 2018 at 6:24 pm #31861
Throughout the textbook I’m transcribing are various sections called Algorithms that appear to be computer related, though I’m not terribly familiar with the usage of the material in real life.
Can you please give me your impressions of the attached algorithm as well as how to deal with the material when it is embedded in regular text outside of the algorithm? I am confused because there is a mix of words, numbers, signs of operations, brackets, etc. and it seems like it would be odd to refer to such material in Nemeth Code in some places and UEB Technical in others. Any guidance is much appreciated.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.September 1, 2018 at 10:37 pm #31878
Thank you for the question!
I would be inclined to use Nemeth Code to transcribe the inputs and outputs of the Maple software program discussed in your example. I would use Nemeth Code instead of UEB for this “computer-code-like” material mostly because it includes so much repetition of values and variables that are elsewhere in the text in Nemeth.
–KyleSeptember 5, 2018 at 4:34 pm #31900
Thank you, Kyle! A few follow-up questions accompanied by an attachment with examples:
1. If I use Nemeth when the functions and commands are interspersed with mathematical expressions, can you confirm that the words would be transcribed without contractions, and italics would be omitted because the italics are used throughout, similarly to the way italics for variable letters are omitted whether they are unmodified in UEB or within Nemeth code?
2. When commands appear embedded in explanatory text, and they are not in contact with mathematical expressions, can I stay in UEB and use contractions and UEB typeform indicators (for instance, “To define matrices and perform Gaussian elimination using Maple, first access the LinearAlgebra library using the command”)?
3. When the function names are all capitals (set NROW(i) = i.), would I just use the double capitalization indicator rather than capitalizing each letter? It does not seem like the individual letters have mathematical significance.
4. For alignment of the pseudo-programs listed in steps, would a nested list using as many levels of indention as there are in print, following the line breaks used print, be acceptable since it’s not exactly itemized mathematical material? In the attached, there are three vertically aligned equations under Step 5. Would you ignore the vertical alignment and just put the second and third lines in cell 5 (because it is a third level indent, with Step 5 being a second level and Step 2 being the first level)?
5. There is a symbol := that is sometimes spaced and sometimes unspaced (examples of each in the attached). There doesn’t appear to be a Nemeth code symbol for this. Would you use the literary colon followed by the spaced equals sign? or put the colon directly next to the equals sign?
Thanks much for your patience looking over this challenging textbook!
- This reply was modified 11 months, 3 weeks ago by rsherwood12.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.September 8, 2018 at 12:40 am #31928
High five for follow-up questions!
You are correct that NO contractions are used within Nemeth Code switch indicators.
Should italics be kept for codes & commands? … Are they distinguishable from other text without the emphasis? If so (for example, because they are all weirdo hybridwords like LinearAlgebra), then there is a strong argument for ignoring the emphasis.
Could you stay in UEB for codes & commands sometimes? I suspect not. It wouldn’t be consistent to present some codes & commands in Nemeth and some in UEB, would it?
It makes sense to me to use double capitals for a series of letters whose components do not have separate values or meanings.
I would, as you suggest, ignore print’s vertical alignment of the equations in Step 5 in your attachment.
[What is going on with the indentations of those STEPs?! Take a chill pill, print!]
The equals sign immediately preceded by what looks like a colon is the definition symbol and means something like, “is defined as; is equal by definition to.” So, I would present it as a single symbol. Maybe you could transcribe the definition symbol as a horizontal combination of the ratio sign and the equals sign and follow NC section 149 by putting a dot 5 between those two symbols of comparison?
Braille on! –Kyle
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)