Re: Math functions? (Particularly transcendental ones)

[Michael G Schwern]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:33:17PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> > >>>>> "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >   >> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
> >   >> I've done numeric work.
> >
> >   BS> ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
> >
> > dan mentioned log (base anything) but i don't recall ln. and definitely
> > the arc hyberbolics are in after i pointed them out. dunno about atanh2.
> >
> We only really need ln(). Then [log(y) base x] is simply [ln(y)/ln(x)].
> There's no need to have separate functions for different bases.

If we try to get away with just implementing ln(), we'll probably
waste more time, space and effort answering FAQs about "How do I do
log base X in Perl?" than we ever would just implementing log(y,
base_x).

Do ln(y) and log(y, base_x) and you pretty much cover everything.

Besides, we have to have at least log(y) for backwards
compatibility--and I don't think "because it's mathematically
redundant" is a valid reason to bust compatibility for a tiny little
function like log().


-- 

Michael G. Schwern   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>    http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>       Kwalitee Is Job One
The desired effect is what you get when you improve your interplanetary 
funksmanship.