2011/4/22 Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com>:
> At 12:58 AM +0200 4/22/11, Nicolas Cellier apparently wrote:
>>2011/4/22 Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com>:
>><snip>
>> >>>>
>>>>>> "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
>
> No one is saying Wolfram is a God, I am just saying that he is an authority on mathematical programming.
> Mathematica is very successful, and based on sound mathematical principles.
> If you do not want to accept Wolfram as an authority, that's up to you I suppose.
>

If I can't disagree with an authority then it must be God.
Maybe it will sound anarchist, but I recognize Mathematica as a
reference, not as an authority.

> I also see Maple uses arcsinh etc.
>

Oh yes, even Axiom, I'm very disappointed !

> Mathematica and Maple are two of the main mathematical programs out there.
> I see no real useful purpose in going against their standards.
> And I think you will be hard pressed to find 'H' in the notation for inverse hyperbolic functions in math textbooks.
>
> Ken
>

Certainly, neither postfixed notation, x cosH, so at the end I'm not
sure it matters that much.
Look, Mathematica and Axiom don't agree on casing ArcSinh vs arcsinh,
why would we have to ?

Nicolas