3 ms·

Why are you telling OP what his problem is? Shouldn't you address his pain points, not your rationalization of them? I wrote it many times already and am bit t

Why are you telling OP what his problem is? Shouldn't you address his pain points, not your rationalization of them? I wrote it many times already and am bit tired of it, so just a quick summary: - programmers[1] also use cryptic notation and tend to think in concepts rather than syntax - nevertheless, programmers spend a lot of time commenting the code, documenting it, specifying it, and so on. - why can't mathematicians emulate it? What is so wrong about attaching additional few pages to every paper that nobody wants to do it? Pages with explanation of the syntax used, even the common bits. And you know what they could also do? Link to external resources with explanations! But no. This is not happening. Do their PDFs have a size limit or something? Is inserting a link into a paper considered some kind of blasphemy? I don't know the reason, but in all the discussions on this topic mathematicians almost always underestimate the importance of knowing the syntax. It's much more important for comprehension than they tend to admit. And in the end they do exactly nothing to make the syntax more approachable for newcomers. And then newcomers are out-goers in a heartbeat. It's so obvious that I can't help thinking it's premeditated... EDIT: [1] Among many others, of course.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Mathematicians do document and comment, that's what papers and textbooks are: commentary on the math. They don't throw out formulae and equations and call it a day. Attaching a full tutorial for every level of reader is tantamount to attaching Stroustrup's C++ books to every C++ program, or K&R to every C program. You wouldn't do that, you'd expect the reader to ask you for references or to seek them out themselves.
- klibertp 5y ago
  > or K&R to every C program. That's actually doable... ;) K&R is rather terse, what, 1/5 of Stroustrup or something like that. But I digress. More on topic: there's also a class of programs that DO come with a book attached - or rather, multiple books, for every level; if not included outright in the distribution then at least linked to in the "learn" tab on a homepage. They're called programming languages. So, it can be done. That's all I want to say.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > What is so wrong about attaching additional few pages to every paper that nobody wants to do it? Pages with explanation of the syntax used, even the common bits. Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? > Link to external resources with explanations! This is called a bibliography, every book that isn't so old that it is the definition and paper includes one. In many textbooks there are also appendices which cover (some of) the foundational material. And most include sections (often in the front and back covers) that show the symbols and their names, if not their definitions.
    - klibertp 5y ago
      > Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? Well, I don't. It was you moving the goalpost. I talked about "a few pages", and you made "a book" out of it. I simply don't agree with you here and so I have very little to add at this point, sorry. > This is called a bibliography, every book that isn't so old that it is the definition and paper includes one. No. Bibliography is like a list of libraries you depend on. It has literally nothing to do with explaining the syntax close to where it's used. > appendices which cover (some of) the foundational material. Ha, ha, ha. No. If it's not front and center, then it doesn't count. I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of this subject. I would be willing to compromise more if that wasn't the case, believe me. > show the symbols and their names, if not their definitions. Ok. Putting that on the cover is a bit strange, but ok. That's a nice, but very small, step in the right direction. Please iterate and improve upon it! EDIT: again, because I missed it at first: > Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? Programs do come with man pages! And tutorials, interactive tours, contextual help, and more. Emacs comes with 3 books, and a tutorial. (GNU) libc has a book to it. Firefox has a whole portal (MDN) as its documentation. Visual Studio comes with MSDN and a huge amount of explanatory material. And when it comes down to code, you have auto-completion, go to definition, search for callers; you can hover over a symbol and you get a popup with documentation and types; you can also trace execution, stop the execution, rewind the execution (if you have good debugger), experiment with various expressions evaluated at different points. The most important difference between math and programming (or CS)is that programmers can (and do) build automated tools that help the next generation of newbies get into programming, while mathematicians can't. It's just that they don't want to admit this is a weakness, and only fortify more in their ivory towers. TLDR: I just can't see how you can even put math papers and programs on the same scale in terms of accessibility!
- jonnybgood 5y ago
  I think the GP post is criticizing the lack of documenting syntax. Math papers tend to document semantics, whereas the understanding of the syntax by the reader is presumed.
TheTrotters 5y ago
Note that the OP is asking about college-level math, not cutting-edge papers. Textbooks routinely have a list of symbols and their definitions. But, from my experience, notation is rarely the problem. I’d bet that the root cause of OP’s frustration is lack of understanding of concepts, not notation. (But, of course, it’s hard to say more without specific examples).

Jtsummers 5y ago

Mathematicians do document and comment, that's what papers and textbooks are: commentary on the math. They don't throw out formulae and equations and call it a day. Attaching a full tutorial for every level of reader is tantamount to attaching Stroustrup's C++ books to every C++ program, or K&R to every C program. You wouldn't do that, you'd expect the reader to ask you for references or to seek them out themselves.

klibertp 5y ago
> or K&R to every C program. That's actually doable... ;) K&R is rather terse, what, 1/5 of Stroustrup or something like that. But I digress. More on topic: there's also a class of programs that DO come with a book attached - or rather, multiple books, for every level; if not included outright in the distribution then at least linked to in the "learn" tab on a homepage. They're called programming languages. So, it can be done. That's all I want to say.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > What is so wrong about attaching additional few pages to every paper that nobody wants to do it? Pages with explanation of the syntax used, even the common bits. Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? > Link to external resources with explanations! This is called a bibliography, every book that isn't so old that it is the definition and paper includes one. In many textbooks there are also appendices which cover (some of) the foundational material. And most include sections (often in the front and back covers) that show the symbols and their names, if not their definitions.
  - klibertp 5y ago
    > Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? Well, I don't. It was you moving the goalpost. I talked about "a few pages", and you made "a book" out of it. I simply don't agree with you here and so I have very little to add at this point, sorry. > This is called a bibliography, every book that isn't so old that it is the definition and paper includes one. No. Bibliography is like a list of libraries you depend on. It has literally nothing to do with explaining the syntax close to where it's used. > appendices which cover (some of) the foundational material. Ha, ha, ha. No. If it's not front and center, then it doesn't count. I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of this subject. I would be willing to compromise more if that wasn't the case, believe me. > show the symbols and their names, if not their definitions. Ok. Putting that on the cover is a bit strange, but ok. That's a nice, but very small, step in the right direction. Please iterate and improve upon it! EDIT: again, because I missed it at first: > Programs don't do this, why do you expect every math paper to do it? Programs do come with man pages! And tutorials, interactive tours, contextual help, and more. Emacs comes with 3 books, and a tutorial. (GNU) libc has a book to it. Firefox has a whole portal (MDN) as its documentation. Visual Studio comes with MSDN and a huge amount of explanatory material. And when it comes down to code, you have auto-completion, go to definition, search for callers; you can hover over a symbol and you get a popup with documentation and types; you can also trace execution, stop the execution, rewind the execution (if you have good debugger), experiment with various expressions evaluated at different points. The most important difference between math and programming (or CS)is that programmers can (and do) build automated tools that help the next generation of newbies get into programming, while mathematicians can't. It's just that they don't want to admit this is a weakness, and only fortify more in their ivory towers. TLDR: I just can't see how you can even put math papers and programs on the same scale in terms of accessibility!
jonnybgood 5y ago
I think the GP post is criticizing the lack of documenting syntax. Math papers tend to document semantics, whereas the understanding of the syntax by the reader is presumed.

TheTrotters 5y ago

Note that the OP is asking about college-level math, not cutting-edge papers. Textbooks routinely have a list of symbols and their definitions. But, from my experience, notation is rarely the problem. I’d bet that the root cause of OP’s frustration is lack of understanding of concepts, not notation. (But, of course, it’s hard to say more without specific examples).