Re: Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg90081] Re: [mg90065] Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
- From: Jack L Goldberg 1 <jackgold at umich.edu>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:52:26 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200806271020.GAA24405@smc.vnet.net>
I beg to disagree. One place where a beginner could run into trouble is pattern matching. I did and I did so precisely on this issue. Moreover, I fully disagree with the judgment that the documentation is adequate. In my opinion it is far from adequate, it is basically non-existent in the sense that most people using Mathematica would accept as "adequate" documentation. This is my opinion of course, but I want to add again that I ran into this issue and puzzled over it for far too long. Quoting Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>: > On 6/26/08 at 5:34 PM, drmajorbob at att.net (DrMajorBob) wrote: > >>> I suppose you aren't counting the description returned by >>> evaluating, > >>> ?Inequaltity > >> The result of that is: > >> "Inequality represents a sequence of relational statements." > >> Personally, I do NOT count that as documentation, > > =46ine. I don't care to argue this specific point > >> There's not even a "More" button. > > Right. And I believe there is a reason for this fact. > >> How would one type ?Inequality in the first place, if one didn't >> already know it existed, with precisely that name? > > Better question. Why would you want to do that except as an > attempt to learn about what is returned by > > FullForm[x>y>=z>a] > > If you think about the documentation for Greater, GreaterEqual > etc., it makes sense for these to have heads identical to the > symbol and a separate page since they can take an arbitrary > number of arguments, i.e., x>y or x>y>z or x>y>z>a etc. > > But this scheme makes no allowance for something like x>y>=z>a. > Clearly, something more is needed to allow for this possibility. > But I think it is equally clear the sequence of inequalities is > far more natural to enter as x>y>=z>a than Inequality[x > y, y > >= z, z > a]. Using FullForm it is easy to verify both are the > same. So, given the far more natural entry possible, what need > is there for more documentation than what is returned by ?Inequality > >> And how does a newbie know that? > > I would not expect a newbie to know that. In fact, I would not > be surprised many experienced Mathematica users would think to > type in ?Inequality without first having seen Inequality in an > expression they were examining by using FullForm. But I do think > the documentation that does exist is adequate in this particular > case for the reasons given above. > > I am not suggesting I think Mathematica documentation is > complete, clear and cannot be improved. I do think this is not > an example of an instance where the documentation is incomplete, > unclear or needs improvement. > > > >
- References:
- Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews@sbcglobal.net>
- Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0