3 ms·
No, it's confusing for mathematicians because it is directly opposing math terminology. (Which is okay, but confusing.)
by bmacho 2y ago
No, it's confusing for mathematicians because it is directly opposing math terminology. (Which is okay, but confusing.)
- Grimblewald 2y agoIt doesnt though, inverse strictly speaking means the multiplicative inverse. The idea was extended in inverse functions eventually which for sake of brevity we also call the inverse. Now f^{-1}(x) and f(x)^{-1} are clearly different beasts the first would describe the square (for square root) while the second describes what quake was doing. Wether you call something an inverse or its full name (multiplicative/functional - inverse) depends on if its unclear from context which was meant.
- throwawaymaths 2y agothe function inverse is the multiplicative inverse in the group of automorphisms over sets (when the multiplication operation is functional composition).
- cluckindan 2y agoFound the Haskell guy.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoim so anti-haskell, your comment pained me to hear
- Grimblewald 2y agoI think it's clear we both know that but for the sake of the commenter arguing the two things are different, it's does not help to simply say they the same without giving example, no?
- throwawaymaths 2y agoyou misunderstand my intent, sorry! i was boosting your point, not arguing against it. please insert the word "yep," in front of my parent comment