On Feb 5, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Why did algebra switched to a very terse notation during the 16th century, and that, for most purposes, scientists and engineers haven't looked back much ?
I mean, why did geometers start to write "a²+b²=h²" instead of writing "the square of the length of the adjacent side plus the square of the length of the opposed side equals the square of the length of the long side" like they used to do ?
I must admit, reading "trigger bang anything bang" in a patch to my eyes much looks like "the square of the length of ..." and I really have problems following such patches as quickly as I can follow the more common usual [t b a b].
I think that's more a matter of what you are used to. Personally, I avoid abbreviations whenever possible, and I find it much more readible. Oftentimes, I need to stretch out big [trigger]s, so the long names help with that.
I like a "bang" to always read "bang", or a "float" to always read "float", like here:
[route float] [route bang] [bang] [bang(
None of these work as [trigger b] or [trigger f] does: [route f] [route b] [b] [b( [f 1(
So it seems to be that the [trigger] abbrevations are a bit of a kludge.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler