My preference would be to have an entirely separate chapter
"Integral Transforms", with a first section "Laplace
transforms". This would leave room for adding other
transforms later, e.g. Fourier, Mellin, etc.
I would not consider integral transforms to be part of
"Integration", they have too many uses that one does not
normally associate with calculating integrals ("Integration").
I would also like to rename "laplace" to "laplace_transform"
(to set it apart from e.g. the "laplace" probability
distribution). And then have "inverse_laplace_transform".
If we agree, I'd be willing to make these changes to the CVS
manual.
Kostas
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Kostas Oikonomou <ko at research.att.com> wrote:
>
>> In the current manual, "laplace(...)" is under
>> "Differentiation", a rather unlikely place for someone to
>> look for it.
>
> Maybe it was put there because the Laplace transform is often
> applied to differential equations ... Maybe "Integration" would be
> a more appropriate chapter heading. I don't fee strongly enough
> to do anything about it, but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from
> moving the text.
>
>> On the other hand, the inverse transform is
>> "ilt" (somewhat cryptic), under "Integration".
>> Wouldn't it make better sense to have an entirely separate
>> section on Laplace transforms?
>
> Hmm, maybe it could be a section under "Integration".
>
>> And perhaps rename (or alias) "ilt" to "inverse_laplace"?
>
> I agree that "ilt" is too cryptic. I like "laplace_inverse" better
> than "inverse_lapace" on the general principle of big-endian
> naming (i.e. most significant part of name goes first).
>
> Now this naming question is something I do feel more strongly
> about, and I would like to hear from others whether or not
> they support renaming ilt to laplace_inverse (or whatever).
>
> best
> Robert Dodier