3 ms·
I'm not talking about programming syntax, I'm talking about communication. It doesn't matter that `-x` and `0-x` are equivalent; `-x` is a well-known convention
by Retra 11y ago
I'm not talking about programming syntax, I'm talking about communication. It doesn't matter that `-x` and `0-x` are equivalent; `-x` is a well-known convention and `/x` is not. (When I read '/x' my brain immediately jumps to trying to interpret that as a malformed expression or a directory or something.)
And you don't need to make a point that every number has a multiplicative inverse. That's already established by simply pointing out that these are the projective reals and that 1/0 = ±∞. All non-zero reals already had multiplicative inverses just as they had additive inverses.
- jacobolus 11y agoMaybe he should have used a ÷ symbol instead? Edit: he clearly wanted to emphasize that this is a unary operator. Using 1/x as the symbol instead of /x or ÷x would weaken the desired association.
- Retra 11y agoThe '1/' symbol is already established to indicate a multiplicative inverse. There's no need for a new symbol nor the repurposing of an old one.