Re: Derivatives Output as TraditionalForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg124502] Re: Derivatives Output as TraditionalForm*From*: A Retey <awnl at gmx-topmail.de>*Date*: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:19:48 -0500 (EST)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*References*: <jfb2rl$hls$1@smc.vnet.net>

Hi, > I have 2 Questions.... > > (1) Why isnt this code standard within Mathematica rather then > having to be Coded by the user?....I used to do all this with Format > which was a Royal Nightmare by comparison.........I have never seen > what purpose this output f^(0,1)[x,y] served.......or does > it??? I don't want to start a discussion about whether it was a good decision to use that notation as the standard, but I think it probably is interesting to mention what the rational behind it might be: A derivative can be seen as something that acts on a function rather than an expression, and that includes functions in a programming language sense. It then is natural to think about argument slots rather than named variables, and the StandardForm of Derivative reflects that. When writing programs I find it very convenient to work with "function" objects compared to expressions since it avoids all kinds of complications with localizations and name spaces of those "artifical" symbols which actually implicitly are just used as named arguments for functions. If you wonder what I'm talking about, look at how this will work without ever defining names for the arguments: f = #1^2*#2^3 & Derivative[0,1][f] It probably needs a programmers viewpoint more than a mathematicians to appreciate the "beauty" and usefulness of such a notation, but I think with some good will you might see it... hth, albert

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Derivatives Output as TraditionalForm***From:*"mathgroup " <fizzymath@knology.net>