Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg99678] Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent*From*: Szabolcs <szhorvat at gmail.com>*Date*: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:22:43 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <9293149.1241693402776.JavaMail.root@n11> <gu0bal$fsj$1@smc.vnet.net>

On May 9, 10:19 am, AES <sieg... at stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <gu0bal$fs... at smc.vnet.net>, > "David Park" <djmp... at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > One just has to get used to what simplifications Mathematica automatica= lly > > does and which ones it doesn't do. Some of the automatic ones are annoy= ing, > > such as 1/Sin[x] -> Csc[x]. > > This particular one has always been particularly puzzling for me. In m= y > 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? prettify[expr_] := Module[{sin, cos, result}, result = expr /. {Csc[e_] -> 1/sin[e], Sec[e_] -> 1/cos[e]}; HoldForm[Evaluate[result]] /. {sin -> Sin, cos -> Cos} ]