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
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
Dear Samuel,
I wonder why this function doesn't follow the tacit rule that
trigonometric functions are notated with three-letter names
There is no such rule, even tacit. Shortness is much weaker than
clarity, and to me cot is really unclear (and too short).
There is, indeed, a rule. It is
Hello,
Le 23/09/2019 à 16:59, Federico Miyara a écrit :
Dear all,
Is there any reason why the cotangent function is called cotg in
Scilab, instead of cot, being cot a Matlab replacement, while the
hyerbolic cotangent is called coth?
I wonder why this function doesn't follow the tacit rule
Dear all,
Is there any reason why the cotangent function is called cotg in Scilab,
instead of cot, being cot a Matlab replacement, while the hyerbolic
cotangent is called coth?
I wonder why this function doesn't follow the tacit rule that
trigonometric functions are notated with three-letter
