Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
MathGroup Archive
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 1999

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg19070] Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!
  • From: "David Bailey" <db at>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:34:56 -0400
  • Organization: University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK
  • References: <7o5ier$>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Mike Tiller <mtiller at> wrote in message
news:7o5ier$rme at
> I have Mathematica 3.0 for Windows and I hate the way it handles
> subscripts.  I read about the Notation package.  Is there a way to
> make a general rule (e.g. using "Symbolize") that will avoid
> expressions seeing subscripting as an operation?  I can do it on a
> per-symbol basis, but that is really tedious.
> Also, I saw some references in the newsgroup to the "latest" version
> of Notation, but the web page of the guy mentioned (somebody named
> Harris I think) is no longer on the wolfram site.
> I really hate the 3.0 interpretation of subscripts.  Has it changed in
> 4.0!?

I have always found the way Mathematica handles subscripts rather neat (and
it is just the same in 4.0). I wonder why you find such problems with the
concept. - it really lets you do whatever you want with subscripts. For
example, if you paste the following into your notebook (and execute it) you
will cause all your subscripted 'a' s to be evaluated to a concatenated

\!\(a\_i_ := Symbol[ToString[a] <> ToString[i]]\)

As the above example illustrates, a subscripted expression is really
analogous to f[i] - you can define it as a function or leave it unevaluated
in algebraic expressions just as you wish.

Do you have a specific example of something you wish to do?

David Bailey,
Salford Software

  • Prev by Date: Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!
  • Next by Date: Re: Showing a limited GrayLevel
  • Previous by thread: Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!
  • Next by thread: Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!