4 ms·

> Try out your notation, which I will agree can be unambiguous in a technical sense, but will quickly become unreadable for actual human beings, on a few modes

by konkin 5y ago

> Try out your notation, which I will agree can be unambiguous in a technical sense, but will quickly become unreadable for actual human beings, on a few modest examples. It's perfectly legible to me and I use it daily in my (mathematical) work. Again all you're saying is that you're not used to it and it must be a bad notation. Just like how people who were shown Arabic numerals defended Roman numerals. I'd do you one better and point out that the example should be = 1 λ x square sin x square cos x since having unbound variables is poor form after someone invented lambda calculus. And yes, you need a symbol for negation which is a step up since a-b is also ambiguous in the same sense. For the second one you easily see why words are superior to symbols when you stop trying to use hieroglyphs and start using letters instead: div add neg b sqrt sub pow b 2 sub times 4 times a c times 2 a. I can define new functions with well known meaning without having to copy special characters or invent type setting systems.

Jtsummers 5y ago
So, you're a troll then, you can't even be consistent in your presentation. + and - are bad to use, but λ is ok to use? Words are the thing to use for "add" and "sub" and "div" (why not the whole word?), but not "equals" or "define function"? And the words you choose are strictly English, which makes your mathematical notation no longer mutually comprehensible across most of the globe? Those are all positives to you? That's how math notation will be dragged into the 20th century? And, what, we now teach lambda calculus to elementary school kids once they start learning about variables? At least try to come up with a plausible argument. > I use it daily in my (mathematical) work. I find this highly unlikely, but sure, if you're not a troll, you've found a notation that (apparently) works for you (what kind of math?) and you think it's better but haven't bothered to think it though. And you still haven't answered the question on the second example, you just made it more verbose. The reader still has to remember (with zero punctuation or other indicators in your example) that the dividend for the div is the next 14 tokens and the divisor the last 3. Because that's totally readable and comprehensible. If you're not a troll, your idea isn't even half-baked.
- konkin 5y ago

by konkin 5y ago

Jtsummers 5y ago

So, you're a troll then, you can't even be consistent in your presentation. + and - are bad to use, but λ is ok to use? Words are the thing to use for "add" and "sub" and "div" (why not the whole word?), but not "equals" or "define function"? And the words you choose are strictly English, which makes your mathematical notation no longer mutually comprehensible across most of the globe? Those are all positives to you? That's how math notation will be dragged into the 20th century? And, what, we now teach lambda calculus to elementary school kids once they start learning about variables? At least try to come up with a plausible argument. > I use it daily in my (mathematical) work. I find this highly unlikely, but sure, if you're not a troll, you've found a notation that (apparently) works for you (what kind of math?) and you think it's better but haven't bothered to think it though. And you still haven't answered the question on the second example, you just made it more verbose. The reader still has to remember (with zero punctuation or other indicators in your example) that the dividend for the div is the next 14 tokens and the divisor the last 3. Because that's totally readable and comprehensible. If you're not a troll, your idea isn't even half-baked.

konkin 5y ago