MathGroup Archive 2008

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg90101] Re: [mg90065] Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
  • From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at>
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <16650201.1214589508146.JavaMail.root@m08>
  • Reply-to: drmajorbob at

You not only brushed aside why articles and tutorials entitled  
"Inequalities" don't mention "Inequality", you actually LEFT OUT those  
comments. Why, because you had no answer?

Yes, FullForm is a fine tool, and every newbie should learn to use it  
often. Once that habit is established, many things can be discovered.

But no, Inequality is not properly documented.

This is, after all, the grand new era of bookless documentation.  
Electronic means of finding information, especially those that can be  
automated... like including a response to F1 for EVERY built-in symbol...  
should WORK.


On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:20:26 -0500, Bill Rowe <readnews at>  

> On 6/26/08 at 5:34 PM, drmajorbob at (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.

DrMajorBob at

  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
  • Next by Date: Re: Modulus / Absolute Value
  • Previous by thread: Re: Inequality not documented in 6.0
  • Next by thread: Bug of Units-package in combination with DynamicModule