3 ms·
> that equation borders on parody in attempting to relay a rather simple concept. I can assure you the only parody I found was how simple it was compared to ho
by zI48wj4rH9q8 10y ago
> that equation borders on parody in attempting to relay a rather simple concept.
I can assure you the only parody I found was how simple it was compared to how big of a fuss is being made. The notation conveyed the concept of an onto function in exactly the right number of symbols. Every logic step was there, bared to the eye:
A mapping from [1...N] to [1...N] such that for every output, there is an input that maps to it.
As a sarcastic quip, what's so complicated about saying f[x]=y? (Equation wasn't the right word for you to use there).
> We dont expect CS people to communicate concepts through compiled, machine language style syntax
That is a complete misunderstanding of what this is. The symbols (and concepts) on this webpage are roughly equivalent to big-O notation in the Computer Science curriculum, in that they are taught in the first undergraduate course that tries to establish some theoretical basis for the subject.
- throwaway729 10y ago> As a sarcastic quip, what's so complicated about saying f[x]=y? IMO that line was the worst offender by far. Just use f(x), especially when you're giving an oral presentation to people who aren't familiar with the context in which the brackets are standards (TLA). Just because your formal system uses brackets for function application don't mean you need to obfuscate your slides.