OpenEuphoria

Re: Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)

• Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gm?.?e> Aug 24, 2007
• 716 views

Derek Parnell wrote:

> Jules wrote:
> > 
> > > Routines for sets should be in a separate include file, not in "math.e".
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > >    Juergen
> > 
> > I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, but why? sets are the foundation
> > of all mathematical systems, underlying all functions, relations, and logic.
> 
> That they may be, but the file will contain set OPERATIONS, and they are not
> commonly used. In other words, just because sets are the basis of
> mathematically
> systems it doesn't follow that therefore set operations are used all the time.
> 
> 
> > Any decent maths text book will start with sets, then go on to basic
> > functions
> > etc.
> > IMO relegating them to a separate include file will give the them the status
> > of a 'specialist' topic, (like matrices, statistics, etc) whereas in fact
> > they
> > are the basis from which all other disciplines are derived.
> 
> In the same way that petrol (gas) is the basis of my car's internal combustion
> engine but it doesn't mean that I do 'petrol' operations when selecting a
> different
> radio station.

And although an apple consists of atoms, fortunately I don't have to study
nuclear physics before I can eat it. 

> If I need to find the cube root of something I don't use set theory or
> practice;
> I call the power() function. In fact, I can't recall the last time I needed
> a set function for any maths in my programs.

I fully agree. Just a short additional note:
Like in real life, it doesn't make sense to put too many things of
different kinds into one big box (file). That's why the include
statement was invented. From the point of view of a programming
language, operatons on sets (and data types for sets) are an entity
of their own. So it's a matter of course that they should be in their
own separate include file. This will also reduce maintainance costs.

Regards,
   Juergen