# [LON-CAPA-users] sample problems

**Lars Jensen
**
lon-capa-users@mail.lon-capa.org

*Sat, 4 May 2002 12:16:57 -0700 (PDT)*

Hi Guy,
Does this mean that we should wait doing formula response problems? The
present setup really won't work. I read from your message that when
mupad is implemented the format for writing formula response problems will
be different (and include implied multiplication).
Lars.
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Guy Albertelli II wrote:
>* Hi Lars,
*>*
*>* > This formula response problem is not that great either - why do I have
*>* > to specifically enter the multiplication sign in the answer - why can't
*>* > I just enter
*>* > 2.1x+3.3y^2
*>* > Above answer is not understood - the system insists that I write
*>* > 2.1*x+3.3*y^2
*>*
*>* Because assumed multiplication is very difficult to interpret
*>* correctly.
*>*
*>* For example:
*>*
*>* xy is that x*y or the variable xy?
*>*
*>* 23x
*>*
*>* Is that 2*3*x or 23*x
*>*
*>* f(x)
*>*
*>* is that f*(x) or the function f with an argument of x
*>*
*>*
*>* For most of these cases I can try to heuristically guess what one
*>* meant but it can become quite troublesome.
*>*
*>*
*>* Future Plans:
*>*
*>* We will be moving away for the simple formula interpreter that we
*>* inherit from CAPA and will be adding in a full Mathematics Kernal
*>* called MuPad.
*>*
*>* --
*>* albertel@msu.edu BM: n^20 t20 z20 qS
*>* Guy Albertelli -7-8-7- O-
*>* Today I will rely on the language of love and understanding.
*>* If that doesn't work, I'll go back to intimidation and fear.
*>* _______________________________________________
*>* LON-CAPA-users mailing list
*>* LON-CAPA-users@mail.lon-capa.org
*>* http://mail.lon-capa.org/mailman/listinfo/lon-capa-users
*>*
*
--
Lars Jensen, TMCC/Vista B200, 7000 Dandini Blvd, Reno NV 89512-3999.
Internet: <jensen@physics.unr.edu>, http://www.scsr.nevada.edu/~jensen
Tel: 775.673.7113 FAX: 775.674.7592