Dear all, Is there any reason why the cotangent function is called cotg in Scilab, instead of cot, being cot a Matlab replacement, while the hyerbolic cotangent is called coth? I wonder why this function doesn't follow the tacit rule that trigonometric functions are notated with three-letter names and is somewhat inconsistent also with the names used for the hypebolic versions. If there is some difference in the result of Scilab and Matlab cotangent, probably the Matlab replacement should be called mtlb_cot, or something like that. Regards, Federico Miyara _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Hello,
Le 23/09/2019 à 16:59, Federico Miyara
a écrit :
There is no such rule, even tacit. Shortness is much weaker than clarity, and to me cot is really unclear (and too short). The shorter are reserved keywords, the more probable are conflicts with custom current variables. So this "g" is welcome. Regards _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Dear Samuel, I wonder why this function doesn't follow the tacit rule that trigonometric functions are notated with three-letter names There is, indeed, a rule. It is included in ISO Standard 8000 Part 2 (Mathematical signs and symbols to be used in natural sciences and technology), clause 13, and states that the symbol for "cotangent of x" is cot x, and that ctg should not be used (it says nothing about cotg, I acknowledge, but preference is clearly for cot). I don't see why cot would be unclear. The shorter are reserved keywords, the more probable are conflicts with custom current variables. So this "g" is welcome. The same would apply to sin or cos or to any of the short or long function names. I think the basic knowledge of common symbols is the responsibility of the user. If a user decided to use cot as a custom variable and then wants to use the same symbol as the trigonometric function (without clearing first the variable) there is a programming style problem. The only problem I see with cot would be a backward compatibility one, which could be handled by keeping cotg during some versions and, if there is any difference between the Matlab cot and the Scilab cot/cotg, introducing a mtlb_cot function as happens with other functions used in the matlab to scilab conveersion tool. Regards, Federico Miyara
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Dear Federico,
Even if there is such a rule, I think that it is not useful to follow the rule mechanically. For example, the integral function is "intg" in scilab. If we follow strictly the rules, it becomes "int" which is confused with the integer (although int is not used as a keyword in scilab). The "intg" is easier to understand it means integral. I think it is a good way from the practical viewpoint not to limit us to follow three characters rule. Best regards, Masahiro Fujimoto -- Sent from: http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Mailing-Lists-Archives-f2602246.html _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Dear Masahiro, I accept that in some cases it might be not convenient to follow a rule, but I think the cotangent is not the case because of 1) a long tradition acknowledged in an international standard, 2) consistency, 3) aesthetics, 4) ease of pronounciation, 5) virtual impossibility of confusion (indeed, try a web search of "definition of cot in math" (*)). The other meanings of cot have nothing to do with math. Regards, Federio Miyara (*) After three and a half pages of links where cot is the cotangent symbol, I've found this page: http://www.memidex.com/ctn+trigonometric-function, where the most serious source, the Collins dictionary, accepts also cotan and ctn as abbreviations On 01/10/2019 03:34, fujimoto2005
wrote:
Dear Federico, Even if there is such a rule, I think that it is not useful to follow the rule mechanically. For example, the integral function is "intg" in scilab. If we follow strictly the rules, it becomes "int" which is confused with the integer (although int is not used as a keyword in scilab). The "intg" is easier to understand it means integral. I think it is a good way from the practical viewpoint not to limit us to follow three characters rule. Best regards, Masahiro Fujimoto -- Sent from: http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Mailing-Lists-Archives-f2602246.html _______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |