renaming undocumented Bessel functions g0, g1, gn

>>>>> "Stavros" == Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at gmail.com> writes:

    Stavros> 1.  (*) text/plain          ( ) text/html           
    Stavros> On 8/8/06, Raymond Toy <raymond.toy at ericsson.com> wrote:
    >> 
    >> >> Why not call them scaled_bessel_i?
    >> However, maybe we should just get rid of them completely?  Maxima
    >> doesn't know any mathematical properties of these functions ...
    >> If we told Maxima the properties of such functions, then it would make
    >> sense to keep them.
    >> 

    Stavros> Maxima works best when there is a canonical representation of a mathematical
    Stavros> concept.  That way, not only can all the knowledge about the concept itself
    Stavros> be in one place, but all other concepts which interact with it only need to
    Stavros> know one version.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.  But how does this apply here?  Should
we make scaled_bessel_i(n,x) be exp(-x)*bessel_i(n,x), so that the
only difference would be if someone needed to evaluate it numerically
for large args?

And what does that say about bessel_i?  Should that be represented in
terms of bessel_j?

Or something else?

Ray