Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

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

Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg106153] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
• From: Vince Virgilio <blueschi at gmail.com>
• Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 03:40:47 -0500 (EST)
• References: <200912300915.EAA17299@smc.vnet.net> <hhhmn8$o9t$1@smc.vnet.net>

On Jan 2, 5:06 am, Leonid Shifrin <lsh... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding this issue, I think I entirely agree with what David Bailey and
> other people said: I don't consider replacement rules as a mathematical tool
> for end users, but rather as an inner layer of Mathematica, which is also
> exposed for flexibility / convenience and intended primarily to be used by
> the more advanced users. [ . . . ]

SNIP

Leonid,

Replacement rules are as mathematical as 'Set' rules; to classify them
otherwise would mislead. The simple difference between the two types
of rules is that Replace is manual while Set is automatic. Both
provide the math concept of 'function', and both can apply to
structures that are non-mathematical. User discretion chooses between
them. 'More advanced users' likely will find more uses for manual rule
sets. On the other hand, they appear in Roman Maeder's introductory
books. (Was it "Introduction to Programming in Mathematica"?)

Vince Virgilio

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
    • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>