> On 27/03/2010 22:38, Douglas G. Danforth wrote:
>> "The Zeta Function: \zeta(2) \equiv \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^2} =
>> \frac{\pi^2}{6}"
>>
>> What a mess (in my opinion). Syntax replaces image.

On 30/03/2010 00:30, Chris Burrows wrote:
 > Just a thought - may be completely off track ;-)
 >
 > Does Mathematica have a better way? e.g.

The first pdf shows three generations of the Docu file for the procedure
LibComplexFn.CinSi. This is defined in Ascii, using MathType, and using 
Casket/LaTeX. To my eye the quality of the LaTeX (on screen or on the printer)
is (*much*) better, and when you get used to that quality there in no going back.

I tried the Zeta function example in Mathematica (see the second pdf). The first
line was entered graphically (a bit like MathType) which is a bit 'fiddly', but 
maybe some people prefer that way. I don't think that line makes 'sense' to 
Mathematica.

The second line was just typed in (with errors! we forgot the pi s) and does 
make 'sense'.

The third line was created automatically by Mathematica from the second, and 
also makes sense. It is a bit of a cross between a mathematical expression and a 
computer language expression.

Line 2 is not much 'simpler' than the LaTeX; the image quality is no better, and
maybe not as good.

A Mathematica license (I think) is about £2500. The annual maintenance is about 
£350.

However Mathematica 'understands' the expression, and can 
evaluate/manipulate/plot it. LaTeX can do none of those things.

So essentially we are not comparing like with like.

Regards

Robert

----
To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV@LISTS.OBERON.CH10 1