Mathcad multiscript button

[tubar]

-allow users to use complex form of variables, with fidelity to the standard forms of variables seen from the technical/sciences books

Multiscript-button (to define a generalized superscript, subscript, upperscript, underscript).

By now exist only Mathcad subscript and Mathcad upperscript that are only for right side of the variable. In the left side I cannot insert anything, Mathcad doesnt allow

In physics are a lot of complex name variables (with many scripts) especially probabilistic variables that cannot be represented in Mathcad in a natural way.

Mathcad by actual limitation force me to use some enshorting names with underline like A_mean or max_A that looks verry bad.

[RichardJ]

Well, this in one we agree on. This is a long standing request, from many people.

[Philip.Oakley]

Isn't Chemical notation one of the options. Not as nice as it could be. But it is an option.

[RichardJ]

But not nearly good enough. If I could get rid of the square brackets it would be better, but still far from ideal.

[jeanGiraud]

On that, where you are wrong is your religion about symbolism. There is no such a thing as "Universal Symbolism" in the math world, only few of them that Mathcad complies. !!! IF !!! Mathcad would make executable some of your book style, they would be wrong in tooooooo many other styles. Don't figure that if you are young (per say) you are at best in math symbolism, by far NOT. You are just more confused. It just happens that I can plug nearly directly the maths from my old books [ German, Russian-English, French] ... but obviously nothing from the Wikipedia style. I'm glad PTC will ignore all those gyzmatic symbolism. One of the worst symbolism is not so old "Dirac" in the optics ... though luck ! Mathcad has no problem because the "Dirac spiritual coding" has been interpreted by expert on both sides ... optics <==> Mathcad.

I have recollection Stuart did a lotlotlot in that direction, Valery as well .

What matters is to make executable in Mathcad what works in other coding. For instance the IAPWS Water Steam properties, it codes simply in VB, as well in Mathcad [I did]. Download the e-book "Visual Quantum Mechanics" [Alexi V, Tikonenko], visit the chemical collection from Valery ... visit Frank Rioux [optics] ...etc. What is it you can't code ? If you can't code that's because you don't see it. Maths is a "working science", i.e: more than words to pass an exam.

jmG

[tubar]

Symbolism is strongest law in Mathematics. Without it woudn't have appear Pitagora law.

Books of sciences I have more than enough. About 200 Gb electronic books. Wikipedia is a good tool although it is somehow a bit cosmopolitic.

If Mathcad succeed to make its methods more parametric, more dynamic and more abstract, will facilitate also researchers.

For example will be better to write all equations directly in Mathcad without limitations and do that research, than to write them on a paper then to make a translation for Mathcad as if Mathcad is something absolute that we have to relate to :). Nope, Mathcad have to adjust to sciences, and sometimes not have to wait for opinions of crowd (sometimes crowd is ignorant) , they just have to transform the software to be closed to sciences. No need to reinvent mathematics by a softwaristic current of think.

For example they use for a column of matrix a notation like M^<i> that is stupid. In mathematic books a column is writen as M(),j or a line as Mi,() that is more natural.

Mathcad does not use operands, hmmm. I ll make another post about this theme: operands and operators as mean to define in flexible mode some new operators based on existing.

Operators are the strongest tools in maths, they are instruments. They are more than just variables or functions.

Mathcad dont use by know operands. They only have some operators predefined and that all.

[jeanGiraud]

What was your point about "operands/operators" ?

You have lots of comments about Mathcad, but no work sheets. Try Mathematica, it is a lot closer to book style for publishing, but when it comes to make things work, just like Mathcad, i.e: in executable form. Besides some logic functions and memory functions, your PC is not different than any other PC, as well as your "Sciences" ... only the 4 arithmetic operations +, -, *, / [basically only +]. With that so little , alllllllllllll the maths since even older than the Greeks and all those you can name. Some extra operators, I would tend to agree but would refuse in the classroom, because you have to know what you are doing. The row operator in Mathcad is about as old as the former Mathcad collab [10 years], it was promised. If you don't have in your 15, it's probably because it is in fact not needed, that it is not of the style you want who cares: you want your style, I want my style, Jo Blo wants his style ...etc. You are just in the wrong community for "math styles", especially with no work sheet to prove your need.

I have the two Dirac operators because Mathcad has the two Dirac operators . You claimed "knowing Mathcad" but don't seem to use the resources. I have the "integral operator" but who could read my work sheets if I don't join the the executable operator with each work sheet ? As a matter of fact, I had designed the "derivative operator", most probably like in your book [at least like in mine] , what does it do ? nothing so special, a lovely piece of design. Maths resume to an algorithm with arguments ... algo(a,b,c,d ... x,,,) , whether built-in native Mathcad or constructed from a programmed function.

If you do maths that don't work, just for publishing, then get a publisher that best suit your inventions.

In conclusion, you are just saying that Mathcad was not designed yesterday morning as per YOUR book.

It was not designed the day before yesterday as per my book either, but it works for me and all Mathcaders.

jmG