Re: Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg99635] Re: [mg99606] Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Sun, 10 May 2009 05:13:41 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <9293149.1241693402776.JavaMail.root@n11> <gu0bal$fsj$1@smc.vnet.net> <200905090720.DAA29931@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu

Because 1/Sin[x] has Depth 3, whereas Csc[x] has Depth 2? AES wrote: > In article <gu0bal$fsj$1 at smc.vnet.net>, > "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote: > >> One just has to get used to what simplifications Mathematica automatically >> does and which ones it doesn't do. Some of the automatic ones are annoying, >> such as 1/Sin[x] -> Csc[x]. >> > > This particular one has always been particularly puzzling for me. In my > experience at least, more or less everyone uses Sin and Cos in writing > out any expressions containing these functions, and practically no one > ever uses Sec and Csc. > > Moreover, I'd make a small bet that if you took a large random sample of > science and engineering professionals, approaching half of them would > get the relationships between Sin and Cos, and Sec and Csc, wrong. > ("Let's see -- it's COsine and COsecant, and then Sin and Secant -- > right?") > > Is there some fundamental mathematical or logical reason behind > Mathematica's choice? Or some strongly embedded or historical > convention in the field of symbolic algebra that leads to this being > done? > -- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

**References**:**Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>