Re^3: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks

by parv (Parson)

on Sep 23, 2005 at 22:01 UTC ( [id://494697]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

No need to be possessive, neither of Fourier and Laplace were.

Comment on Re^3: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 23, 2005 at 22:04 UTC
Yes, but then it "used" to be called the Schwartzian Transform, not the Schwartz Transform. Just keeping in line with the "old" name :)	[reply]
Re^5: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by merlyn (Sage) on Sep 23, 2005 at 22:31 UTC
Wouldn't that be more like the Jacquonian Transform then? Not possessive, but derivative. It's not the Schwartz's transform. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]
Re^6: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 23, 2005 at 23:22 UTC
I kinda view those as the same, but if merlyn says it's called the Jacquonian Transform, who am I to argue! ;)	[reply]

In Section Meditations

Domain Nodelet^?

Node Status^?

node history
Node Type: note [id://494697]
help

Chatterbox^?

How do I use this? • Last hour • Other CB clients

Other Users^?

Others having a coffee break in the Monastery: (7)

As of 2024-04-19 16:28 GMT

Sections^?

Information^?

Find Nodes^?

Leftovers^?

Voting Booth^?

No recent polls found