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