Re: Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg99635] Re: [mg99606] Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent
- From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 05:13:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst
- References: <9293149.1241693402776.JavaMail.root@n11> <gu0bal$fsj$1@smc.vnet.net> <200905090720.DAA29931@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: murray at math.umass.edu
Because 1/Sin[x] has Depth 3, whereas Csc[x] has Depth 2?
AES wrote:
> In article <gu0bal$fsj$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
> "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> One just has to get used to what simplifications Mathematica automatically
>> does and which ones it doesn't do. Some of the automatic ones are annoying,
>> such as 1/Sin[x] -> Csc[x].
>>
>
> This particular one has always been particularly puzzling for me. In my
> experience at least, more or less everyone uses Sin and Cos in writing
> out any expressions containing these functions, and practically no one
> ever uses Sec and Csc.
>
> Moreover, I'd make a small bet that if you took a large random sample of
> science and engineering professionals, approaching half of them would
> get the relationships between Sin and Cos, and Sec and Csc, wrong.
> ("Let's see -- it's COsine and COsecant, and then Sin and Secant --
> right?")
>
> Is there some fundamental mathematical or logical reason behind
> Mathematica's choice? Or some strongly embedded or historical
> convention in the field of symbolic algebra that leads to this being
> done?
>
--
Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305
- References:
- Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent
- From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
- Re: TraditionForm Appears to be Inconsistent