# [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

14 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|

## [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Hello CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand of a polynomial representation in Laplace plan It makes schemes unreadeable Could it be corrected in a next version 6.xx RegardsHere is a  first lower pass filter with variable Ts=1 (see also buggzilla 16223)   _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Hello Pierre, Le 30/10/2019 à 10:26, Perrichon a écrit : Hello   CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand of a polynomial representation in Laplace plan The "*" sign has been removed on purpose, in order to somewhat compact the expression displayed in the icon, that can be very wide. It's fine when coefficients are literal numbers, but you are right: when a coefficient is a variable, the display then becomes ambiguous. I will see how to detect and avoid this. Regards Samuel _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Hello Samuel, Thanks you for your positive response. It gives me hopeFor literal numbers, sign « . » is also acceptable instead of sign « * » Best regardsPierre  De : users <[hidden email]> De la part de Samuel GougeonEnvoyé : mercredi 30 octobre 2019 12:00À : [hidden email]Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10 Hello Pierre, Le 30/10/2019 à 10:26, Perrichon a écrit :Hello CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand of a polynomial representation in Laplace planThe "*" sign has been removed on purpose, in order to somewhat compact the expression displayed in the icon, that can be very wide. It's fine when coefficients are literal numbers, but you are right: when a coefficient is a variable, the display then becomes ambiguous. I will see how to detect and avoid this.RegardsSamuel_______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Le 30/10/2019 à 12:41, Perrichon a écrit : Hello Samuel,   Thanks you for your positive response. It gives me hope For literal numbers, sign « . » is also acceptable instead of sign « * » Yes, i think i planned using it when i did the job, but then the dot with a literal decimal number like "2" that becomes "2." yielded 2..s , that was KO. Detecting decimal integers, trimming their dot... I have given rid of it, without thinking about variables. We could try with a small space as well. Even small things take time to be tuned... And there are _a lot_ of little things. _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 In reply to this post by Perrichon Le 30/10/2019 à 12:41, Perrichon a écrit : Hello Samuel,   Thanks you for your positive response. It gives me hope For literal numbers, sign « . » is also acceptable instead of sign « * » With a dot: With a wider space: With the original *: What's the best, in average situation ? My own preference goes to the wider space. But i am not a Xcos user. _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

Dear all,

I think a half-high (centered) dot "·" is a better (and more standard) multiplication sign, it does not take much space and it cannot be confused with the decimal separator ".", for instance

1 + Ts·s - A·s
2

1 + 2.·s - 0.27·s2

However, I think the decimal dot shouldn't be used in a block diagram, its only use is to indicate they are real numbers, but block diagrams never refer to integers so the decimal dot is somewhat pedantic.

By the way, the "·" can be typed using Alt-250 (on the num pad).

Regards,

Federico Miyara

On 30/10/2019 16:32, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
Le 30/10/2019 à 12:41, Perrichon a écrit :

Hello Samuel,

Thanks you for your positive response. It gives me hope

For literal numbers, sign « . » is also acceptable instead of sign « * »

With a dot:

With a wider space:

With the original *:

What's the best, in average situation ?

My own preference goes to the wider space.
But i am not a Xcos user.

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 Libre de virus. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Le 30/10/2019 à 21:51, Federico Miyara a écrit : Dear all, I think a half-high (centered) dot "·" is a better (and more standard) multiplication sign, it does not take much space and it cannot be confused with the decimal separator ".", for instance 1 + Ts·s - A·s2 1 + 2.·s - 0.27·s2 However, I think the decimal dot shouldn't be used in a block diagram, its only use is to indicate they are real numbers, but block diagrams never refer to integers so the decimal dot is somewhat pedantic. ? When a decimal number is integer, the dot is not displayed. With your dot, it would give 1 + 2·s - 0.27·s2 So the confusion could be only with cases like 1 + 2.55.s I was told that in formulae, the most standard is to use space between multiplied symbols. This is what looks the most widely used. Please see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation or any other page using a lot of maths. Output with \cdot : vs wider space or still wider: _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 In reply to this post by Perrichon Le 30/10/2019 à 10:26, Perrichon a écrit : Hello CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand of a polynomial representation in Laplace plan It makes schemes unreadeable First, you know that la Laplace variable is always s. Second, in such specific cases, you can anyway use this: Samuel _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

In reply to this post by Samuel GOUGEON

Samuel,

In another e-mail that for some reason was not sent (and was completely deleted...) I mentioned this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols and standard ISO 80000-2, which in its clause 9, item 2.9.5 says that symbol for multiplication is either · or ×, and that they can be omitted if no misunderstanding is possible, and presents two examples of omission, one with space, such as a b, and one without space, such as ab (I suppose this is when one has been already using a and b or they are immediately explained).

I like the space more, it is more general and the only situation where it would be ambiguous is between numbers, such as 1.234 58 (since the thousand separator is a short space according to the ISO-BIPM GUM), but between numbers × is customary.

Regards,

Federico

On 30/10/2019 18:43, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
Le 30/10/2019 à 21:51, Federico Miyara a écrit :

Dear all,

I think a half-high (centered) dot "·" is a better (and more standard) multiplication sign, it does not take much space and it cannot be confused with the decimal separator ".", for instance

1 + Ts·s - A·s
2

1 + 2.·s - 0.27·s2

However, I think the decimal dot shouldn't be used in a block diagram, its only use is to indicate they are real numbers, but block diagrams never refer to integers so the decimal dot is somewhat pedantic.

?
When a decimal number is integer, the dot is not displayed. With your dot, it would give
1 + 2·s - 0.27·s2
So the confusion could be only with cases like 1 + 2.55.s

I was told that in formulae, the most standard is to use space between multiplied symbols.
This is what looks the most widely used. Please see for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation or any other page using a lot of maths.

Output with \cdot :

vs wider space

or still wider:

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 Libre de virus. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 Le 30/10/2019 à 23:25, Federico Miyara a écrit : Samuel, In another e-mail that for some reason was not sent (and was completely deleted...) I mentioned this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols and standard ISO 80000-2, which in its clause 9, item 2.9.5 I have well received it, but in private, and ending with this reference, that is not public (to buy) (not sure that i can access to it from my University. Will try later). says that symbol for multiplication is either · or ×, and that they can be omitted if no misunderstanding is possible, and presents two examples of omission, one with space, such as a b, and one without space, such as ab (I suppose this is when one has been already using a and b or they are immediately explained). Thanks for this explicitness. I like the space more, it is more general and the only situation where it would be ambiguous is between numbers, such as 1.234 58 (since the thousand separator is a short space according to the ISO-BIPM GUM), but between numbers × is customary. It would be very hard (and easily prone to errors, due to many specific cases, using parentheses, etc) to parse the input to detect all possible cases (1-char symbols, multiple-char symbols, literal numbers with or without exponential notations, real or complex, etc) and adapt the multiplication symbol accordingly. We might even define a "Ts.s=2" structure field in the context, and use it in the input. It works. ;-) A final possible gallery:        Regards _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

 In reply to this post by Samuel GOUGEON   Dear all, dear Samuel,   Many thanks for your gallery For me the better d       > Message du 31/10/19 00:16> De : "Samuel Gougeon" <[hidden email]>> A : [hidden email]> Copie à : > Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10> > Le 30/10/2019 à 23:25, Federico Miyara a écrit :> > Samuel,> > In another e-mail that for some reason was not sent (and was completely deleted...) I mentioned this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols and standard ISO 80000-2, which in its clause 9, item 2.9.5 > I have well received it, but in private, and ending with this reference, that is not public (to buy)> (not sure that i can access to it from my University. Will try later). > > says that symbol for multiplication is either · or ×, and that they can be omitted if no misunderstanding is possible, and presents two examples of omission, one with space, such as a b, and one without space, such as ab (I suppose this is when one has been already using a and b or they are immediately explained).> > > > Thanks for this explicitness.> > I like the space more, it is more general and the only situation where it would be ambiguous is between numbers, such as 1.234 58 (since the thousand separator is a short space according to the ISO-BIPM GUM), but between numbers × is customary.> > It would be very hard (and easily prone to errors, due to many specific cases, using parentheses, etc) to parse the input to detect all possible cases (1-char symbols, multiple-char symbols, literal numbers with or without exponential notations, real or complex, etc) and adapt the multiplication symbol accordingly.> > We might even define a "Ts.s=2" structure field in the context, and use it in the input. It works.> ;-)> > A final possible gallery:> >      >     >     > > > Regards> >_______________________________________________users mailing list[hidden email]http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users_______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

In reply to this post by Samuel GOUGEON

Samuel,

Just a detail: in some books the p variable is used as the Laplace variable, especially when working with normalized variables. For instance, a normalizad butterworth filter may pe presented as

1/(1 + 2*p + 2*p^2 + p^3)

I recall Bildstein's book on Active filters. See also:

But it is true that most references use s.

Regards,

Federico Miyara

On 30/10/2019 19:02, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
Le 30/10/2019 à 10:26, Perrichon a écrit :

Hello

CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand

of a polynomial representation in Laplace plan

It makes schemes unreadeable

First, you know that la Laplace variable is always s.
Second, in such specific cases, you can anyway use this:

Samuel

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 Libre de virus. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

In reply to this post by Samuel GOUGEON

Dear,

A new time, Federico is right.

Monsieur Pierre-Simon de Lapalce is a French man ==> so the variable of Laplace is p

American are not France, so they use s

Like Grafcet in FRANCE, which is a french conception and SFC in US and their copies several years later.

I've done my own componants library in certains case under scilab/xcos, without problem in  5.5.2 and I use p and s in sheme

For me not a problem. But I can take 5 minyes ti explain history during the rush with students.

I hope that the last component with CLR will be accepted and retained, so it is so nice, as said by Federico ans Samuel pour the next 6.1

Regards

> Message du 31/10/19 19:52

> De : "Federico Miyara" <[hidden email]>
> A : [hidden email]
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10
>
>
> Samuel,
>
> Just a detail: in some books the p variable is used as the Laplace variable, especially when working with normalized variables. For instance, a normalizad butterworth filter may pe presented as
>
> 1/(1 + 2*p + 2*p^2 + p^3)
>
> I recall Bildstein's book on Active filters. See also:
>
>
>
But it is true that most references use s.
>
> Regards,
>
> Federico Miyara
>
>
>
On 30/10/2019 19:02, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
>
Le 30/10/2019 à 10:26, Perrichon a écrit :
>

Hello

CLR design component brings confusion by forgetting the * sign in operand

of a polynomial representation in Laplace plan

It makes schemes unreadeable

> First, you know that la Laplace variable is always s.
> Second, in such specific cases, you can anyway use this:

> Samuel

>
>

>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

>
 Libre de virus. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users