3 ms·
> I think a real problem in this area is the belief that there is "one true notation" and that everything is unambiguous and clearly defined. Just to back up t
by bajsejohannes 5y ago
> I think a real problem in this area is the belief that there is "one true notation" and that everything is unambiguous and clearly defined.
Just to back up this point: In probably every university-level math book I've read, they introduce and explain all the notation used. In the preface and/or as concepts are introduced.
There are lists at wikipedia [1] and other places, but I'm not sure how valuable it is out of context.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_mathematical_symbols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_mathematical_symbo...
- nicoburns 5y agoHa, you've clearly used better books than me. I've read plenty where they glossed over the notation and expected you to guess.
- ColinWright 5y agoOften books assume some prerequisites, the question here is the level of those prerequisites. Some books try to include all the necessary background, others assume a pre-existing base level of knowledge. Different authors, different books, different audiences, and different contexts.
- bajsejohannes 5y agoIt's not entirely unlikely that I am remembering just the good stuff :) But I was surprised how many books would define even the most common notation, like ⊂, ∀, and ∃. I guess if you call your book "Introduction to..." you ought to do that. And it seems that all books were called that, regardless of how narrow and advanced the rest of the title was :)