Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg114611] Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator
• From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
• Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:30:09 -0500 (EST)
• References: <idl6vd\$mkp\$1@smc.vnet.net> <idnqq6\$q5i\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```In article <idnqq6\$q5i\$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
Noqsi <noqsiaerospace at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is easy to see the kind of chaos the vague and ambiguous "rules
> should be interpreted semantically in a way that makes mathematical
> sense" would cause. How should
>
> a + b I /. I->-I
>
> be interpreted *semantically*?

I do not possess anything like the depth of knowledge of symbolic
algebra or the understanding of the principles of semantics that would
embolden me to offer any answer to the preceding question.

But I will offer the following opinion:  However the above rule is to be
interpreted, in any decent symbolic algebra system, assuming a and b
have not yet been assigned any values, the symbol I should be
interpreted (i.e., modified) identically -- i.e., in *exactly* the same
fashion -- for either of the inputs

a + b I /. I->-I      OR     a + 2 b I /. I->-I

This is NOT the case in Mathematica.  This behavior is a "gotcha" that
can be responsible for large and hard to trace difficulties for many
users

Furthermore, I believe that Mathematica WILL interpret (i.e. , modify)
the two inputs above in exactly the same fashion if the character I in
thee two expressions is replaced by ANY OTHER single upper or lower case
letter in the alphabet.  Does anyone else find this not to be true?

```

• Prev by Date: Help me find a probability distribution
• Next by Date: Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator
• Previous by thread: Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator
• Next by thread: Re: Replacement Rule with Sqrt in denominator