Re^2: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by parv (Parson) on Sep 23, 2005 at 22:01 UTC
No need to be possessive, neither of Fourier and Laplace were.	[reply]
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