On 7/28/08, Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu> wrote:
> I suggest a simplifying non-subscripted notation for the hypergeometric
> functions:
I'm sympathetic to this, but I'm not quite ready to give up the
subscripted functions. Subscripted notation is the natural thing
to write since that's the way those functions are indicated in
non-Maxima contexts. But such notation isn't very useful in
Maxima because of Maxima doesn't handle subscripted symbols
the same as ordinary ones --- that's a bug IMNSHO, and compared
to all the other bugs in Maxima, probably not so hard to correct.
Now there are other functions (e.g. Bessel) which are commonly
represented with subscripts, yet Maxima wants the symbol without
a subscript. Ideally those functions would be written with subscripts too.
Some specific comments ...
> (0) The subscripts on %f give redundant information. We could have
> maxtex & displa include these subscipts.
Well, if that's the case, then omit the redundant subscripts from
the (...) part, not the [...].
> (1) I think gradef & and subscripted functions aren't compatible.
It's a bug that declarations in general cannot be applied to
subscripted symbols.
> (2) Subscripted functions make everything harder. (Subscripted simplifying
> functions are possible (correct?), but I don't know how it works.)
Well, the way the simplifier is now arranged, simplifications for
subscripted functions can work; they would be associated with
MQAPPLY (i.e. the subscripting operator). However if declarations
could be applied to subscripted symbols, maybe the simplification
could be associated directly with the function of interest.
I'm know there are a lot of practical difficulties with subscripted
functions, and precedent for omitting the subscripts. I just wanted
to air these ideas.
best
Robert Dodier