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

Re: notation using # with exponents and &

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg93184] Re: notation using # with exponents and &
• From: Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>
• Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:02:45 -0500 (EST)

On 10/29/08 at 5:48 AM, siegman at stanford.edu (AES) wrote:

>In article <ge6nik$ll4$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
>Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>In any case, whether what the Mathematica documentation calls a
>>pure function is consistent with some other definition is of little
>>practical significance. It certainly isn't helpful to call the
>>construct an anonymous function even if this is more correct in
>>some sense given doing so is not consistent with the Mathematica
>>documentation. Using a nomenclature inconsistent with the
>>documentation is certain to cause more confusion rather than
>>increase clarity.

>I'm afraid I'd flatly disagree with nearly every statement in this
>paragraph:

>1)  Suppose a reasonably widely accepted definition for any
>technical term or 'term of art' -- such as the term "pure function",
>for example -- exists and is widely used and understood in the
>mathematical world (and I've already stated that I'm no expert on
>the concept of a pure function).

You have nicely demonstrated your ability to logically arrive at
a different position by supposing a different starting point.

I agree *if* there where an established definition for some term
at the time Mathematica was first created and Wolfram chose to
*arbitrarily* re-define the term, that would be very
undesirable. But there is no evidence this is the case. So, why
start by assuming this?

=46urther, given the nature of Wikipedia, why assume the
definition there (which doesn't seem to conflict with
Mathematica) is a widely accepted definition?