2011/4/22 Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com>:
> On 2011-04-21, at 15:56, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21.04.2011, at 23:52, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-04-21, at 15:16, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21.04.2011, at 23:01, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011/04/21 21:18, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21.04.2011, at 21:24, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a question of language: how to name them in English ?
>>>>>>>> Using asinh acosh atanh like any other programming language do would
>>>>>>>> be that simple...
>>>>>>>> But Smalltalk did not follow that path and didn't implement asin acos atan...
>>>>>>>> In French, inverse hyperbolic functions are named like this
>>>>>>>> argument sinus hyperbolique (argsh ou argsinh)
>>>>>>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonction_hyperbolique#Argument_tangente_hyperbolique
>>>>>>>> So I decided to use argSinh argCosh argTanh quite naturally (like we
>>>>>>>> have arcSin arcCos arcTan).
>>>>>>>> However I'm not sure English has same conventions. Can someone enlighten me?
>>>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>> How about hypSin, hypArcSin, etc.? Alternatively, sinHyp, arcSinHyp.
>>>>>>> This would fit the existing theme better, since we use arcSin where others use asin, etc. Just appending an "h" looks odd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh, I think appending an "h" looks exactly right :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/InverseHyperbolicCosine.html for instance uses "arccosh".
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually searching my image with the message names browser for 'arcSinH', I found the following:
>>>>> arcSinH
>>>>> testArcSinH
>>>>> testArcSinHStd
>>>>
>>>> "H" is much better than "h".
>>>>
>>>> - Bert -
>>>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>> Not according to Wolfram. They suggest lower case 'h'.
>>>
>>> Ken,
>>> from my iPhone
>>
>> So what? Wolfram's use of "arc" for the hyperbolic inverse is wrong too, as Nicolas pointed out.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>
> So let's pretend Wolfram knows something about mathematical notation.
>
> Ken
>
>

Thinking of Wolfram as a God is Religion and there is nothing to
debate in this case.
But thinking of Wolfram as a human creation helps exercizing rational
skeptical inquiry.

Until someone exhibits a good rationale for employing arcus, it will be area.

Nicolas