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

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

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg64994] Re: [mg64975] Re: General--Making the DisplayFormula style in ArticleModern look like Traditional
• From: "David Park" <djmp at earthlink.net>
• Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:15:29 -0500 (EST)
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

What is TraditionalForm? Is it what you find in math books and research
articles? In fact, these are full of inexact, confusing and varied notation.
'Traditional form' is not at all the golden standard that is being claimed!

Mathematica StandardForm is an important step to simple, clear and
unambiguous notation - even if it doesn't look like what people are used to.

David Park
djmp at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/



From: Bill Rowe [mailto:readnewsciv at earthlink.net]
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net

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.