Re: Math expression standard

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:20:30 -0500

On 16 Sep 2004 23:16:50 GMT, rusin@vesuvius.math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin)
wrote:

>In article <4vtik0l1ud75ghv610u4vsq0258rdd78m6@4ax.com>,
>David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>>On 15 Sep 2004 19:47:32 GMT, rusin@vesuvius.math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>(Some people write sin^{-1} for arcsin, and some write it for 1/{sin})
>>
>>Who does the second? I don't think I've ever seen this. (Always felt
>>that the clash between sin^2 and sin^{-1} was a bad bad thing - if
>>there exist people of the sort you claim exist then it's even worse.)
>
>
>In another article, kenrlance@yahoo.com (Kenneth Lance) wrote,
>> The parser of the graphing software GrafEq recognizes the expression:
>> -3^2sin^-1xy+lgx.5(1+3^2^3x^-.2)+lg10 as
>>
>> -(3^2)*((sin(xy))^(-1))+lg(x*0.5*(1+(3^(2^3))*x^(-0.2)))+lg(10)
>
>So there's an example (though I didn't verify his statement).

Uh, when I said I didn't think I'd ever seen this I meant in a
context a little more authoritative then usenet...

>But truly I had in mind the notations for integrals which show what to do
>with \int \sin^n x dx , including the case n=-1 ...

But that's an excellent example which I hadn't thought of.

>Personally I don't think I _ever_ use the notation sin^n(x) except
>when I have to explain someone else's use of the notation. And I really
>can't understand why we permit the parenthesis-free notation to continue
>to be used when it's so confusing.

I'll write them a letter about this.

>dave

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages
Quantcast