Re: notation using # with exponents and &
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg93184] Re: notation using # with exponents and &
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:02:45 -0500 (EST)
On 10/29/08 at 5:48 AM, siegman at stanford.edu (AES) wrote: >In article <ge6nik$ll4$1 at smc.vnet.net>, >Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>In any case, whether what the Mathematica documentation calls a >>pure function is consistent with some other definition is of little >>practical significance. It certainly isn't helpful to call the >>construct an anonymous function even if this is more correct in >>some sense given doing so is not consistent with the Mathematica >>documentation. Using a nomenclature inconsistent with the >>documentation is certain to cause more confusion rather than >>increase clarity. >I'm afraid I'd flatly disagree with nearly every statement in this >paragraph: >1) Suppose a reasonably widely accepted definition for any >technical term or 'term of art' -- such as the term "pure function", >for example -- exists and is widely used and understood in the >mathematical world (and I've already stated that I'm no expert on >the concept of a pure function). You have nicely demonstrated your ability to logically arrive at a different position by supposing a different starting point. I agree *if* there where an established definition for some term at the time Mathematica was first created and Wolfram chose to *arbitrarily* re-define the term, that would be very undesirable. But there is no evidence this is the case. So, why start by assuming this? =46urther, given the nature of Wikipedia, why assume the definition there (which doesn't seem to conflict with Mathematica) is a widely accepted definition?