3 ms·
Anybody who doesn't read that first chapter to the end is going to be very confused. > To make it easier to read we use E^2(1-x) for (E(1-x))^2 and E(1-x)^2 fo
by thomaskcr 12y ago
Anybody who doesn't read that first chapter to the end is going to be very confused.
> To make it easier to read we use E^2(1-x) for (E(1-x))^2 and E(1-x)^2 for E((1-x)^2).
Why change that notation? That seems to purposefully be introducing confusion.
On page 14 they don't use that notation (om^2(x+y) = om^2(x) + om^2(y) -- according to their notation note that should really be om^2(x+y) = (om (x+y))^2).
Not trying to knock what seems like a really neat introduction, I just don't understand the need for defining ridiculously unconventional notation and then not using it consistently introducing a lot of confusion.
- PurplePanda 12y agoI've seen this notation quite commonly. I haven't looked at the link but based on your quote your comment about page 14 doesn't look right. The different notation doesn't change the number of times you need to write the operator. Your new equation is just writing the same thing on each side, but using a different notation. It's like a=a. Whereas their equation is apparently giving an identity.
- thomaskcr 12y agoI've never seen it but I am trying to think back to all of those times I worked both directions on a proof and just shrugged in the middle =p. Ah -- you're totally right on my last sentence. Thank you.
- madcaptenor 12y agoIt's basically declaring operator precedence - saying "we're going to write things this way so we don't need so many parentheses". It's fairly analogous to writing sin^2 x for (sin x)^2, a notation which the intended audience is probably used to. (Although that notation creates its own trouble when you have sin^(-1) x ...)