[Scilab-users] cotg and acot

[Federico Miyara]

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
> users at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>



-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20191001/9841affd/attachment.htm>