3 ms·
> I wouldn’t call the construction given by Paul Dirac trivial. Do you think it is Yes? It's doing exactly the thing that your parent comment complains about i
by thaumasiotes 2y ago
> I wouldn’t call the construction given by Paul Dirac trivial. Do you think it is
Yes? It's doing exactly the thing that your parent comment complains about in the gamma function, introducing additional constants (in this case, mostly 2s) that, for no particular reason, don't count.
Why would you interpret squaring as consuming a 2, but square rooting as not consuming a 2?
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoBecause of our standard notation for those
- the__alchemist 2y agoYou are inferring that as a rule of the game by making assumptions. There are other conclusions different people could reach.
- karparov 2y agoAnd those other people are free to do whatever they like in their interpretation of the game.