Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Suggestions on how to use standard engineering symbols in Mathematica

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg104104] Re: Suggestions on how to use standard engineering symbols in Mathematica
  • From: Alexei Boulbitch <Alexei.Boulbitch at iee.lu>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:12:50 -0400 (EDT)

Hi, Nasser,

for the moment of inertia you may like to use J instead of I, and for the Young's modulus 
Y instead of E, the more that it is done like this sometimes in literature. 

However, if you nevertheless need to use the same letter as is reserved by Mathematica, you may think of 
using these letter in double. Say, EE instead of E for the Young's modulus, or II instead of I for the inertia moment
and so on. It may be a bit faster, than using Gothic of script letters, though a regular use of the Gothic 
alphabet has an advantage that you will learn it. I still did not yet.

Have success, Alexei


Hello

This is a problem I am sure all of us had.

It would be nice to use the same standard engineering/physics 
symbols/letters found in textbook to write the equations in mathematica.

But some/many of those symbols conflict with existing Mathemtica symbols. 
For example, Young modulus is always written as E, but E in mathematica is 
reserved to the exponential constant, and I would like to use I (upper case 
I) to mean the moment of inertia, and not have it conflict with complex 
number I. And many other examples.

I was wondering if there is a way to still use these letters in my equations 
but not conflict with Mathematica's?

I thought may be I could make a bold versions of these letters with a new 
code, or find latine characters which "looks like" these from the palette, 
but have different ASCII code.

Or may be I could tell mathematica somehow to "undefine" these symbols 
during some computation and restore them again, so it will not interpret 
them as its own standard symbols only during this computation, but was not 
sure if this is a good idea? (would this will cause a problem internally to 
Mathematica as it could very well use these symbols in its own package code. 
I could always use Exp[] instead of E and use Sqrt[-1] instead of "I" when I 
really mean to use the Mathematica letters and leave E and I etc... for my 
use.

Any other ideas others have on this subject? I'd really like to write the 
equations as they appear in the textbook if possible and not have to rename 
standard engineering letters to something else.

--Nasser

-- 
Alexei Boulbitch, Dr., habil.
Senior Scientist

IEE S.A.
ZAE Weiergewan
11, rue Edmond Reuter
L-5326 Contern
Luxembourg

Phone: +352 2454 2566
Fax:   +352 2454 3566

Website: www.iee.lu

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal from your system. Thank you for your co-operation.




  • Prev by Date: Re: Point on sphere greatest distance from given
  • Next by Date: Re: Suggestions on how to use standard engineering symbols
  • Previous by thread: Re: Point on sphere greatest distance from given
  • Next by thread: mathematica 7.0 crash