Dear Masahiro,
I accept that in some cases it might be not convenient to follow a rule, but I think the cotangent is not the case because of 1) a long tradition acknowledged in an international standard, 2) consistency, 3) aesthetics, 4) ease of pronounciation, 5) virtual impossibility of confusion (indeed, try a web search of "definition of cot in math" (*)). The other meanings of cot have nothing to do with math. Regards, Federio Miyara (*) After three and a half pages of links where cot is the cotangent symbol, I've found this page: http://www.memidex.com/ctn+trigonometric-function, where the most serious source, the Collins dictionary, accepts also cotan and ctn as abbreviations On 01/10/2019 03:34, fujimoto2005 wrote:
Dear Federico, Even if there is such a rule, I think that it is not useful to follow the rule mechanically. For example, the integral function is "intg" in scilab. If we follow strictly the rules, it becomes "int" which is confused with the integer (although int is not used as a keyword in scilab). The "intg" is easier to understand it means integral. I think it is a good way from the practical viewpoint not to limit us to follow three characters rule. Best regards, Masahiro Fujimoto -- Sent from: http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Mailing-Lists-Archives-f2602246.html _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
