2009-08-15

The importance of syntax & notations.

Xah's Edu Corner: The importance of syntax & notations.

http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/mathml/mathml_abstract.html

this article should teach the coding sophomorons and computer “science” idiotic authors who harbor the notion that syntax is not important, picked up by all the elite i-reddit & twittering & hacker news am-hip dunces.

Further readings:

• The TeX Pestilence
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html

• A Notation for Plane Geometry
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/plane_geometry_notation.html

• The Concepts and Confusions of Prefix, Infix, Postfix and Fully Nested Notations
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html

• The Problems of Traditional Math Notation
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/trad_math_notation.html

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/



> Could you elaborate on why dx/dy is no good? Have you written something on it?

Hi,

not sure why it is not clear... there are so many problems.

a/b means a divided by b, or, a times the multiplicative inverse of b.

but, obviously, dx/dx does not mean a variable divided by another variable.

in another interpretation, dx can be thought of as a unary operator d(x). However, that does not make any sense. But suppose there is some sense, then d(x)/d(y) does not make sense, since it is not a division as before.

the notion of dx and dy as Infinitesimal has a logical foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

however, even with that, i doubt the dx/dy notation is good on any math notation as computer language background.

See the links on Functional Math and formal math at middle of:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/trad_math_notation.html

also:
http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/math_codify.html

Thanks for writing.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/



upon a more detailed reading of Stephen's article, i discovered some errors.

On this page:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/mathml/mathml2.html

he mentions the Plimpton 322 tablet. It is widely taught in math history books, that this table is pythagorean triples.

On reading his article, i wanted to refresh my understanding of the subject, so i looked up Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322

and behold!

apparantly, in recent academic publications, it is suggested that this is not pythagorean triples, but rather: “a list of regular reciprocal pairs”.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

No comments:

Post a Comment