Commercial Macsyma was a bit chaotic with names for the
Bessel functions; for bessel(a,b), the second argument is
the order and for bessel_j(a,b) the first argument is the order.
One could also use a subscript for the order: bessel_j[a](x).
(Maybe some versions are different; this is the way my
macsyma seems to behave.) The display function always showed
the order as a subscript.
Although it's not a compelling reason, we might consider how the
Bessel functions will be converted to TeX.
Making the orders of Bessel functions subscripts instead of a function
argument may make it easier to convert them into TeX; thus I think that
bessel_j[42](x) would easier for mactex to translate to $$J_{42}(x)$$
than it would be to translate bessel_j(42,x) to $$J_{42}(x)$$.
Using my texput function, one doesn't have to modify mactex at
all if subscripts are used for the order:
(C1) texput(bessel_j,"J");
(D1) J
(C2) tex(bessel_j[6](x^2));
$$J_{6}(x^2)$$
Barton
Raymond Toy wrote:
>I propose that we deprecate these names and use bessel_j(z,a) as the
>main routine for all of these. (What does macsyma call this function?
>Maybe we should use the same name as macsyma.)