Burcin Erocal wrote:
> 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.
+1 for the MMA style.
Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
