Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica > #2686 > unrolled thread

Re: Series[log[x], {x, 0, 3}]

Back to article view | Back to comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Contents

  Re: Series[log[x], {x, 0, 3}] Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu> - 2011-05-25 09:55 +0000
    Re: Series[log[x], {x, 0, 3}] Helen Read <readhpr@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:31 +0000

#2686 — Re: Series[log[x], {x, 0, 3}]

I agree that in many instances, using something of the form f@x may seem 
at odds with traditional mathematical notation. (Although it's still 
useful in avoiding the eye-nuisance of nested brackets in a construction 
such as g[f[x]].)

But something of the form g@f[x] is very natural from the viewpoint of 
traditional mathematical notation: the "@" is reminiscent of the circle 
operator denoting functional composition.

Usually, using @ seems to be a matter of either stressing a particular 
meaning or else making an expression easier to read. (Making an 
expression easier to type is hardly ever the reason I, at least, would 
use @.)

On 5/24/2011 5:59 AM, Helen Read wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 6:24 AM, Bill Rowe wrote:
>> On 5/22/11 at 6:55 AM, hszhao.cn@gmail.com (Hongsheng Zhao) wrote:
>>
>> While I cannot speak for DrMajorBob, my reason for using the
>> notation f@x rather than f[x] is primarily readability. Constrast
>>
>> Sqrt[Abs[Sin[x]]]
>>
>> with Sqrt[Abs@Sin@x]
>>
>> Both do the same, but for me, it is easier to see what the
>> second form does than the first. Deeply nested brackets are more
>> difficult for me to read. And there is the additional factor of
>> less typing required for the second form.
>
> Each to his/her own. Personally I far prefer the nested brackets, which
> to me is more readable -- it's closer to familiar written mathematical
> notation, and it's clear where each function ends.
>
> And I don't see how the @ sign results in any less typing.
>
> @  requires pressing two keys simultaneously, Shift+2
>
> [ ] requires two keys (one at a time), the [ and ]
> or two keys simultaneously Alt+]  to get matched brackets
>
>

-- 
Murray Eisenberg                     murray@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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2727

It's definitely a matter of taste. I almost never use the circle 
notation for function composition, and I dislike the @ notation for 
similar reasons.

HPR

On 5/25/2011 5:55 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree that in many instances, using something of the form f@x may seem
> at odds with traditional mathematical notation. (Although it's still
> useful in avoiding the eye-nuisance of nested brackets in a construction
> such as g[f[x]].)
>
> But something of the form g@f[x] is very natural from the viewpoint of
> traditional mathematical notation: the "@" is reminiscent of the circle
> operator denoting functional composition.
>
> Usually, using @ seems to be a matter of either stressing a particular
> meaning or else making an expression easier to read. (Making an
> expression easier to type is hardly ever the reason I, at least, would
> use @.)
>
> On 5/24/2011 5:59 AM, Helen Read wrote:
>> On 5/23/2011 6:24 AM, Bill Rowe wrote:
>>> On 5/22/11 at 6:55 AM, hszhao.cn@gmail.com (Hongsheng Zhao) wrote:
>>>
>>> While I cannot speak for DrMajorBob, my reason for using the
>>> notation f@x rather than f[x] is primarily readability. Constrast
>>>
>>> Sqrt[Abs[Sin[x]]]
>>>
>>> with Sqrt[Abs@Sin@x]
>>>
>>> Both do the same, but for me, it is easier to see what the
>>> second form does than the first. Deeply nested brackets are more
>>> difficult for me to read. And there is the additional factor of
>>> less typing required for the second form.
>>
>> Each to his/her own. Personally I far prefer the nested brackets, which
>> to me is more readable -- it's closer to familiar written mathematical
>> notation, and it's clear where each function ends.
>>
>> And I don't see how the @ sign results in any less typing.
>>
>> @  requires pressing two keys simultaneously, Shift+2
>>
>> [ ] requires two keys (one at a time), the [ and ]
>> or two keys simultaneously Alt+]  to get matched brackets
>>
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

csiph-web