On Mar 29, 5:15 pm, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really think it would be silly to require
> sage: integrate(x^3,x)
I don't find this so silly, especially in an educational setting. I
am forever telling my students that the "dx" part of an integral
(definite or indefinite) is not optional. In a definite integral it
reminds them of the partition of the interval, and in an indefinite
integral it tells you what the relevant variable is. But a subset of
students can't be bothered to include it. These are the same students
who begin a trig-substitution integral with substitutions like x = tan
(x) and don't get anywhere because they don't see a need to even form
the differential as part of transforming the integral.
But personally, I find the variants for specifying variables, and
their associated ranges, somewhat confusing. I can never quite
remember if the x is needed or not, and then does it take the form:
x,a,b or (x,a,b)? Then with plotting and graphics there is the
keyword rgbcolor/color dichotomy. So I'm in favor of consistency and
explicitness, for many of the same reasons given by Golam above, and
for ease-of-use. No matter what the various M's choose to do.
But then speaking out of the other side of my mouth, I find
var('y')
integrate(y^3,y)
to have a redundancy that is not needed, and what I consider a
impediment to Joyner's "insane ease of use." So go figure. End of
mild-mannered retort. ;-)
Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
