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

Re: Readability confuses mathematica?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg44682] Re: Readability confuses mathematica?
• From: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>
• Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 05:13:06 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: The University of Western Australia
• References: <bpfg19$m0e$1@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

In article <bpfg19$m0e$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
 Bill Rowe <readnewscix at mail.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Interesting. I admit, I've not seriously attempted to use TraditionalForm for 
> input mainly due to this comment in the Mathematica Book. I will have to give 
> it a try and see how I like it. When you say you use TraditionalForm "in a 
> perfectly reliable and unambiguous way", is there anything special (not 
> obvious) about the way you use TraditionalForm that makes it "perfectly 
> reliable and unambiguous"? Is so, it seems to me there may not be a conflict 
> between the comment I found in the Mathematica Book and your experience.

Have a look at 

  http://physics.uwa.edu.au/pub/Mathematica/MathGroup/Notation.nb
 
> But if I cannot rely on Mathematica's interpretation of inputs made in 
> TradiationalForm this would be rather cumbersome and painful. 

But you can always write input into a TraditionalForm cell using 
InputForm (or StandardForm) notation.

> From my perspective, it is far better to use a form I can count on as being correct 
> and use the coversion options later as desired.

In this case you could just work as you do now with StandardForm input 
and then hit \[CommandKey]\[ShiftKey]t.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 
Paul Abbott                                   Phone: +61 8 9380 2734
School of Physics, M013                         Fax: +61 8 9380 1014
The University of Western Australia      (CRICOS Provider No 00126G)         
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009                      mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au 
AUSTRALIA                            http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul