More questions on expanding function names to explicit forms
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg8169] More questions on expanding function names to explicit forms
- From: Paulo Mouat <mouat at mail.telepac.pt>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:51:13 -0400
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Thank you very much for your reply, but I was wondering if there was a way of automatically obtaining the explicit mathematical form of functions, that is, one that does not require preparation to do so, as in the HoldForm suggestions you made. Suppose I want to write a report that uses many of the advanced mathematical functions supported by Mathematica. It makes sense to obtain an explicit mathematical form even if only to indicate that from then on Erf[x] would be a shorthand to 2/Sqrt[Pi] Integrate ... Also, I was interested in such representations so as to obtain explicit mathematical forms in intermediate or final results, avoiding the use of function names. Since simple mathematics can lead to more complicated mathematics upon certain calculations, I would like to avoid the introduction of advanced function names so that the output is readable by someone not familiar with the particular Mathematica representation of advanced functions. Is there a simple way to do this--meaning not having to type every HoldForm form for every function? If not, is there a package with such forms (Mathematica has to resort to explicit forms of functions in order to do symbolic operations, has it not?) or a way to generate it in a (perhaps quasi-) automatic fashion? All the best. > You can do this in the same way that you can convert an output such > as the integer 4 into its explicit mathematical form 2+2: > > In[5]:= 4 /. 4 -> HoldForm[2+2] > > Out[5]= 2 + 2 -- __|__ ___\_/___ Paulo Mouat, ___ mouat at mail.telepac.pt |___| http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8804/ |___|