Re: General--Making the DisplayFormula style in ArticleModern look like Traditional

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg64975] Re: General--Making the DisplayFormula style in ArticleModern look like Traditional*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:15:06 -0500 (EST)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 3/8/06 at 12:59 AM, paul at physics.uwa.edu.au (Paul Abbott) wrote: >In article <dujsgg$97j$1 at smc.vnet.net>, >Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net> wrote: >>Assume for the moment, Mathematica is entirely bug free with >>respect to converting StandardForm to TraditionalForm. The net >>effect of this conversion is to create (in many cases) nicer >>looking output at the cost of obscuring the needed input. >This assumes that people will be typing in electronic code from an >electronic document by hand! Yes. >Surely you would agree that the need to do this archaic practice is >rapidly diminishing? Perhaps. But I doubt the need will ever vanish entirely as long as there are hard copy texts. If the journal were only distributed electronically, then there would be no issue. But since it is distributed via hard copy as well there will always be a few wanting to try the ideas presented who do not have the electronic version. >And, indeed, it is part of the whole rationale >behind the use of Notebooks. >>For many widely used functions, the traditional form is seems to >>be a more compact notation, more easily understood and easily >>mentally translated to StandardForm. But Mathematica handles a >>wide variety of functions. And some of those functions typeset in >>traditional form are not widely used and are unfamiliar to someone >>outside a particular field where it is commonly used. For such >>functions, given there is no simple direct way to input the >>function in TraditionalForm, >When you say direct, you mean via the keyboard. Of course, you can >use palettes -- but you can also use aliases (which I assume you >count as indirect). Yes, I did have in mind keyboard input and I hadn't thought of aliases. Aliases certainly work and are convenient once setup but clearly don't address this issue until they are defined. And the operation of defining them gets back to the problem of how to input the function in the first place. Palettes are useful but aren't a very effective way to address this issue. If the function is one I am not familiar with it will be unlikely I have a palette open which would allow simple input of the function. Which means locating a palette that could be used to input the function is likely to be a problem. >Well, all Premier Service subscribers can read TMJ for free. See >e.g., >http://www.wolfram.com/news/mathwire/mw-08-2005.html >Universities with site-licenses may also have Premier Service (mine >has). Surely, you aren't assuming all readers of the journal are also Premier Service subscribers or that they all have access to university provided tools? The choice of TraditionalForm versus StandardForm in the journal really depends on the goals of the article. If the goal is to make the mathematics as clear as possible to the widest possible audience, then TraditionalForm is clearly the better choice. But if the goal is to elucidate how a particular task can be done in Mathematica, StandardForm is the better choice as it more clearly shows the underlying Mathematica code. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four