[Tutor] Lotka-Volterra Model Simulation Questions
oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com
Sun Sep 30 00:57:38 CEST 2012
On 29 September 2012 22:57, Alan Gauld <alan.gauld at btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/12 11:42, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 19:16, Alan Gauld wrote:
> Totally agree.
> My point is that we should not choose short names just to keep an
> expression on a single line. The evidence suggests that the advantages of
> longer names outweigh the advantage of a single line. But in the cases here
> where single letters evidently have expressive power in their own right the
> familiar term is preferable over a longer descriptive name.
> Of course, care is needed when splitting an expression over multi lines
> to keep the readability so if the terms can be naturally split by operator
> then that's the place to split them. But this is the same in written math
> too. (Most of the equations I remember reading from my quantum mechanics
> days were split over at least 3 lines... trying to force them into a single
> line would not have made them any more palatable!)
I wouldn't advocate forcing an equation onto a single line if it doesn't
fit on a single line. However, I'm sure that the equations you're refering
to would have already been using lots of symbols described by very succinct
single-greek/latin-letters and other simple glyphs. Naturally, these
equations would not be meaningful to someone lacking prior experience of
Now imagine replacing each of those single letter symbols with English
underscore-separated words so instead of letter capital psi you would have
'time_dependent_wave_function' and instead of hbar you would have
'planks_constant_over_twopi' and so on. Your equation would go from three
lines to thirty and noone would be able to understand it *even if they were
familiar with the subject*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tutor