Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
1999
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*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: Q: Why can't I stop TraditionalForm dismissing Times Attributes ?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg15814] Re: Q: Why can't I stop TraditionalForm dismissing Times Attributes ?
  • From: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:39:37 -0500 (EST)
  • Organization: University of Western Australia
  • References: <79ea1o$9hh@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Fabien Boniver wrote:

> In order to do some formal computations, I need Plus and Times not to be
> Listable.  

Instead of modifying Plus and Times (which can be problematic) why not
program the infix symbols CircleTimes and CirclePlus to do what you
want? 

In[1]:= CirclePlus[a_, b_] := f[a, b] In[2]:= CircleTimes[a_, b_] :=
g[a, b]

where f and g can be any function you want.  They have no built-in
attributes and have TraditionalForm input and output so you should be
able to easily program them.

Cheers,
	Paul

____________________________________________________________________ 
Paul Abbott                                   Phone: +61-8-9380-2734
Department of Physics                           Fax: +61-8-9380-1014
The University of Western Australia            Nedlands WA  6907       
mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au  AUSTRALIA                       
http://www.physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul

            God IS a weakly left-handed dice player
____________________________________________________________________


  • Prev by Date: Re: FindRoot behaving funny?
  • Next by Date: Re: 4th order DE, NDSolve no solution, why?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Q: Why can't I stop TraditionalForm dismissing Times Attributes ?
  • Next by thread: Re: Transc. Eqn - Symb. Iterative Sol'n.?