[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg114426] Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator
*From*: Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>
*Date*: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 06:12:43 -0500 (EST)
Richard Fateman wrote:
> [...]
> Each time someone defends Mathematica via "you have to look
> at FullForm" he/she is essentially saying, "Mathematica is now too
> stupid to do what you want,
A more accurate translation would be "Mathematica is to stupid to read
your mind and figure out what you really want."
> and the programmers of the system
> are too resistant to making it smarter.
I cannot speak for all of the programmers here. For myself, I'll say
I've been doing this stuff a long time, and I recognize a fool's errand
in what you propose here.
> Thus the burden falls on
> you to look at the data representation underlying the abstraction
> to make your program work."
I'd change "abstraction" to "representation". At which point I would
agree, regarding the burden.
> It's not so hard to make the system smarter.
I'll indicate below why I am not convinced what you want equates to
smarter software.
> But you pay for what
> you get.
Here I agree.
Actually one of the things I really appreciate about Mathematica, and
for which, alas, I can take no credit, is that rule replacement works so
reliably well. When I get frustrated with it failing to do what I intend
(about once every month or two), there is the inevitable session with
MatchQ to sort things out.
> RJF
I think any nonsyntactic rule replacement will need very clear
semantics. The notion "replace it if it shows up visually" is not
terribly clear. It relies, among other things, on specifics of the
format settings, vagaries of e.g. StandardForm, and other details.
To give an idea of what is meant by the formatting vagaries, consider
that we could represent 1/Sqrt[x+1] explicitly as (x+1)^(-1/2) (mentally
format that so it looks pretty, with the exponent raised, no caret,
etc.) So the substitution semantics being proposed would depend on
formatting?! Or should it apply to any power of (x+1) when that power
visually has a 2 in the denominator? (Does it then apply to
(x+1)^(a/2+b/4)? Or only to the equivalent (x+1)^(1/2*(a+b/2))?)
These are the questions that would need to be answered before even
embarking on this journey.
I will add that about the last thing anyone wants is that StandardForm
formatting be influenced by the desire to avoid any possibility of
showing "misleading" expression structure. I don't think you are
proposing otherwise, but it would be a natural outcome to any effort to
try to curtail this misunderstanding.
I have not raised the I->3*I issue. I do wonder what should be the
outcome of Sin[x] /. I->3*I . Maybe the trig equivalent of
(Exp[3*I*x] - Exp[-3*I*x]) / (6*I), which is Sin[3*x]/3? (Maybe we
should make it case insensitive, and return S3in[x]?)
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research
Prev by Date:
**Re: [Please Help] How to get coefficient list from a**
Next by Date:
**Tempvar zombies littering my context!**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator**
Next by thread:
**Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator**
| |