Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2003
*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 2003

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

Search the Archive

Re: Functions with multiple groups of arguments? [David Park?]

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg40034] Re: Functions with multiple groups of arguments? [David Park?]
  • From: atelesforos at hotmail.com (Orestis Vantzos)
  • Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:32:56 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <b51aa4$34l$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

This defines a 3-parametric family of functions, one for every choice
of a,b,c.
It is mainly a matter of cosmetics, although you can make useful
definitions like:
myF=f[1,2,3]
f[1,2,3]'[x] (* differentiates it *)

Mathematica is all about symbols and rules; functions are just a
notational convention. Hence you might run into weird definitions like
that from time to time. Read the Book about "Principles of
Mathematica".
Orestis


AES/newspost <siegman at stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<b51aa4$34l$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
> In a recent message on Mathematica programming, David Park included a 
> sample function definition in a form I've never encountered before, 
> namely
> 
>     f[a_,b_,c_][x_]  := a + Sin[b x + c]
> 
> What is this?  How does it work?  (I can guess, but don't seem to find 
> anything about this in the Help files to confirm my guess)
> 
> Given the same values of a, b, c and x, does this form work differently 
> in *any* way from
> 
>     f[a_,b_,c_, x_]  := a + Sin[b x + c]
> 
> If not, why do it this way? Or is the only reason for doing it this way 
> one of cosmetics?
> 
> ???


  • Prev by Date: Increase in efficiency with Module
  • Next by Date: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
  • Previous by thread: RE: Functions with multiple groups of arguments? [David Park?]
  • Next by thread: Re: silver-pohlig-hellman ... please improve