Cajori also importantly notes the elationship between e and pi; as well as symbols that denote this relationship (FIsher? memory is port here).
I ithnk the more importnt differentiation is the one between +Mathematic_ constants, and _Scientific_ ones; example: many of the newer (ca1900s and so on) cPhysics constants dealing with EM effects and other theora were encoded with specific constants (such as 4pi) to make subsequent calculations less complex. Such constants as would proeprly be regrded as _Mathematial_ woud have to be ineluctable (you cannot get rid of them) and usually stated as some form of ratiocination of ratio of functor between a set or poly of _other- mathematical only constructs. Note well, the golden Mean, Pi, e, gamma, and others, all have this characteristic: with the additonal constrain that either there is no other way ot deal with thmem, ot that restatemennt of the mathmatics _without_ them becomes impossible or incredibly difficult (Please ote that any construct in one language may be restated in another without it by inducing a suitable PRK formed by homolg or co-homorphism against the "fields" involved in each leg of the common PRK; but it can become quit complex Example: it IS possible to state division in terms of, say, sine functions. But it shows a difficult reduction to talk about division wth soeone who only can reason in terms of sin functions). On 6/14/06, John Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dly wrote: > Napier's constant which he denoted e in honour of Euler is given by > 1x1 in J which similarly can be raised by powers of e > Napier never used e: in particular he did not have the notion of a base (plus he died about a century before Euler was born). Euler himself first used e in private correspondence in the 1720s. It first appeared in print around 1736. It is conjectured that either it is the first letter of exponential or, more likely, the first available vowel (he used "a" for something else). It is unlikely he named it after himself. > (Not to be confused with Euler's constant which he denoted C and > Macheroni denoted γ=0.5772156649) > I'm not convinced Mascheroni used gamma, but I have not seen the original work (from 1790, where he also miscalculated it). The secondary source often cited for this is from the 1870s. Cajori's book on mathematical notation claims Mascheroni used A. Other notations persisted through the 19th century. Best wishes, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
-- -- Roy A. Crabtree UNC '76 gaa.lifer#11086 Room 207 Studio Plus 123 East McCullough Drive Charlotte, NC 28262-3306 336-340-1304 (office/home/cell/vmail) 704-510-0108x7404 (voicemail residence) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc -- (c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST (Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity All Rights/Reserved Explicitly Public Reuse Only Profits Always Safe Traded
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
