4 ms·
I'm reading a disagreement in your phrasing, but I think we're saying the same thing: Math notation is the wild west, dressed in the veneer of consistency but i
by ajamesm 10y ago
I'm reading a disagreement in your phrasing, but I think we're saying the same thing: Math notation is the wild west, dressed in the veneer of consistency but indignant at any untoward implication.
Programming languages are praised by their elegance and economy, even when they're wacky. Any theory (programmatic, mathematical, scientific) benefits from those qualities, because theories like to be axiomatic and terse. But any primer or intro or lesson is made MUCH better through repetition and redundancy. Computers don't need the rule of three, people do, and there's an mismatch.
- catnaroek 10y agoYes, there's a disagreement. contravariant's complaint about the notation G^2 is completely justified.
- ajamesm 10y agoI would object too, but I don't see how that could be confusing moreso than any whiteboard "you get what I mean" pseudocode. The reader's walking in with knowledge of the product-based construction of N-dimensional space, and we readily admit that "R^2" is (a set literally, but) taken to mean the space equipped with whatever operations appropriate for whatever algebra. I'm being kinda sophist on this. "G^2" isn't meaningful. I agree. But given the convention of naming a set with the implication of whatever topology/metric/norm, the notation is already under harsh torture, right..?
- catnaroek 10y agoIn my reply to contravariant, I explain why I don't think R^2 constitutes abuse of notation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13241874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13241874 .