Re: [Reduce-algebra-developers] lv versus log

[Rainer S. <rai...@gm...>]

Hm, I forgot all about the discussion.

No objection.

Maybe we should remove the simpfn property from ln as well.

The few places where ln is used in the manual are mathematical formulas (I
think).

  Rainer


On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 15:52 -0000, Francis Wright wrote:

 > We discussed this issue at some length back in 2018; see https://sourceforge.net/p/reduce-algebra/mailman/reduce-algebra-developers/thread/HE1PR0902MB1913AD39C9C0F1DCF8F49629E57D0%40HE1PR0902MB1913.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com/#msg36342997. The conclusion was not to change the behaviour of REDUCE but simply to remove ln from the manual, although as Arthur already remarked it still appears in the documentation for some of the user-contributed packages.
 >
 > In view of Nasser's recent question about ln, I'm inclined to do what I suggested in 2018, namely to add the advice to the manual to use
 >
 > define ln = log;
 >
 > in order to be able to use ln as input for the natural logarithm. Any objections?
 >
 > Francis
 >