Talk:Abramowitz and Stegun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Low-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Low Priority
 Field: General (historical)
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Reference works (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of reference work-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

"The notation used in the Handbook is the de facto standard for much of applied mathematics today."[edit]

Seems a little bogus. It was published as late as 1964. Having looked at the scans, I'm not aware of any major innovations in notation in this work.

I don't see a contradiction between the quote and what you're saying. The notation in A&S was indeed not new, as a matter of fact I think very little in the handbook was new. Nevertheless, the writers had to pick one notation for the various special functions out of several alternatives, and the notation they chose has largely stuck. -- Jitse Niesen 00:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


De facto vs De facto[edit]

Hi Jitse. Sorry to revert your edit, but I believe that the phrase de facto has a very very specific definition, and furthermore that this was the intended sense in the article. I think it's used appropriately in the article, and that it adds to the meaning of the sentence. AMS-55 is a de facto standard, and I believe that many readers will be interested in this precise use of language. The de facto article describes it nicely; the subtle nuance of this nice little piece of language would otherwise be lost on many readers, I suspect.

Best wishes, Robinh 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think that if the phrase "de facto" is likely to be misunderstood, it shouldn't be used. If you do want to link, then a link to wikt:de facto may be more appropriate. But it's such a minute detail that I don't want to spend more time on this. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation of Abramowitz and Stegun[edit]

A template is available to make it easier to cite this work within Wikipedia. See Template:Abramowitz Stegun ref and its talk page. The template will link to a copy of the text which is freely available on line. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dover 9th printing[edit]

The 9th Dover printing long pre-dates 2005 (contrary to the note in the current version of the article). Inside my copy it says This ninth Dover printing conforms to the tenth (December 1972) printing by the Government Printing Office, except that additional corrections have been made on pages 18, 79,..., but on the back cover it has only a ten-digit ISBN. Also it's been on my desk since about 1983. --catslash (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for pointing this out. I take it that your ninth Dover printing lists the same nine additional corrections already listed in the article, right? If so, there must have been (slightly) different versions of the ninth Dover printing over the years. I wished we could track down the exact dates of all print runs (and the corresponding errata fixes). Does your copy feature any designations (such as a printer's key) which could be interpreted as print date? My (blue paperback) copy (with ISBN-13), which I bought new around 2010, does not, unfortunately. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some online errata running up through August 2015 at http://dlmf.nist.gov/errata/ . They appear to be fixes that the government has applied to their online function library that will some day be propagated to the physical book. It says that the book was last updated in 2010. That 2010 edition was based on Abramowitz and Stegun but is now called 'NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions'. It has a different set of authors on the cover. For details see the Amazon description. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, same nine corrections, no, no printer's key or other clues. It has the same illustrated pale blue paper cover (white back cover) as a copy I have at work which was bought much more recently (probably this century). After Easter I will compare these copies to see if I can discern any differences. It seems likely that Dover gave up updating the colophon after their ninth printing. On the back cover of my home copy, after the ten-digit ISBN, it says $17.95 in U.S.A., whereas this copy at Google Books, which is also the 9th Dover printing and also has a ten-digit ISBN was $34.95 IN USA (and gives a web-address, which my copy lacks of course). catslash (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my copy with 13-digit ISBN states $39.95 USA. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abramowitz and Stegun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)