On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:42:46 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain <gmhoss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, kcrisman<kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style
> >> notation.
> >
> > Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
> >
> > (a) If we all agree that there is no ambiguity when the particular
> > argument is a "symbolic variable" or "symbolic function" then
> > we should typeset them as those found in text-books.
> > Ex:
> > (1) D[0,0,0] (f)(x,y) => \frac{\partial^3}{\partial
> > x^3} f (x,y)
> > (2) D[0] (f)(g(x,y), h(z)) => \frac{\partial}{\partial
> > g(x,y)} f(g(x,y), h(y))
> >
> > so that we will no longer see nicely typeset partial derivatives
> > even in case (a)(1) (or even Leibniz notation at all?), or is it
> > only in the case (b) "when the argument is an expression"?
> > Thanks for the clarification.
>
> As Burcin pointed out that even MMA uses different Tex-ing scheme
> for some situations such as F'[x] for D[F[x],x]. So strictly
> speaking even MMA uses hybrid approach.
I don't think what MMA does can really be called a hybrid approach. It
just represents first and second derivatives of single argument
functions with F' and F'', instead of F^{(1)} and F^{(2)} respectively.
John Palmieri wrote in a different thread:
> I don't like the D[1] notation at all. By the way, when we have a
> function f of two variables, should we automatically assume that the
> mixed partials are equal? Does this affect our choice of notation?
I guess we assume that they commute:
sage: var('x,y,z')
(x, y, z)
sage: t = f(x,y)
sage: diff(t,x,y)
D[0, 1](f)(x, y)
sage: diff(t,y)
D[1](f)(x, y)
sage: diff(t,y,x)
D[0, 1](f)(x, y)
> I guess, we should aim for doing better than MMA/Maple.
What would the hybrid approach be in this case? Use Maple convention,
but use MMA style F^{(4, 0} instead of D[1,1,1,1]F[x+y,y] or F^{(3,1)}
instead of D[1,1,1,2]F[x+y,y]?
I would like to settle this vote and get rid of the D[...] notation as
soon as possible, but William's count of 4 votes for MMA notation to 2
votes for Maple notation doesn't look decisive. At least I can't
believe there were so few responses. :)
Can people who care about this please comment and vote?
If there are no objections to the above definition of "hybrid approach",
the options for default printing are:
1) Mathematica style
2) Maple style
3) hybrid
For all cases, we would need to provide a function that takes the names
of the arguments of the given symbolic function as a parameter and
typesets the expression in "textbook style"
I still vote for 1, MMA style. To state the reasons again, it's
consistent, and concise.
Cheers,
Burcin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
